Re: [PATCH V4 00/11] perf/core: Add ability for an event to "pause" or "resume" AUX area tracing

[Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>]

On 1/02/24 18:29, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 31/01/2024 16:53, Ian Rogers wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:49 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/01/24 10:19, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Hardware traces, such as instruction traces, can produce a vast amount of
>>>> trace data, so being able to reduce tracing to more specific circumstances
>>>> can be useful.
>>>>
>>>> The ability to pause or resume tracing when another event happens, can do
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> These patches add such a facilty and show how it would work for Intel
>>>> Processor Trace.
>>>>
>>>> Maintainers of other AUX area tracing implementations are requested to
>>>> consider if this is something they might employ and then whether or not
>>>> the ABI would work for them.
>>>>
>>>> Changes to perf tools are now (since V4) fleshed out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Changes in V4:
>>>>
>>>>     perf/core: Add aux_pause, aux_resume, aux_start_paused
>>>>       Rename aux_output_cfg -> aux_action
>>>>       Reorder aux_action bits from:
>>>>               aux_pause, aux_resume, aux_start_paused
>>>>       to:
>>>>               aux_start_paused, aux_pause, aux_resume
>>>>       Fix aux_action bits __u64 -> __u32
>>>>
>>>>     coresight: Have a stab at support for pause / resume
>>>>       Dropped
>>>>
>>>>     perf tools
>>>>       All new patches
>>>>
>>>> Changes in RFC V3:
>>>>
>>>>     coresight: Have a stab at support for pause / resume
>>>>       'mode' -> 'flags' so it at least compiles
>>>>
>>>> Changes in RFC V2:
>>>>
>>>>       Use ->stop() / ->start() instead of ->pause_resume()
>>>>       Move aux_start_paused bit into aux_output_cfg
>>>>       Tighten up when Intel PT pause / resume is allowed
>>>>       Add an example of how it might work for CoreSight
>>>
>>> Any more comments?
>>
>> I think the tools side looks good. The parsing changes match the
>> existing style. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to handle the valid
>> strings (pause, resume, etc.) in the lexer rather than a separate
>> parse function, but the pattern used matches the existing one. You can
>> have my Acked-by on the tools changes, although the subtleties of ARM
>> PMUs makes me somewhat nervous in this regard.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ian
> 
> Acked-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
> 
> I will get round to adding the Coresight support at some point. I
> checked the new parsing in this version and it seems to work ok.

Thanks James and Ian!