From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751944Ab3LJCLo (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:11:44 -0500 Received: from lgeamrelo02.lge.com ([156.147.1.126]:53096 "EHLO LGEAMRELO02.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750805Ab3LJCLn (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:11:43 -0500 X-AuditID: 9c93017e-b7bb9ae000000ec8-b6-52a6785d68c9 From: Namhyung Kim To: Vince Weaver Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chad Paradis , David Ahern , Ingo Molnar , Jiri Olsa , Paul Mackerras , Peter Zijlstra , Stephane Eranian Subject: Re: [patch] perf tools: perf list broken on ARM References: Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:11:41 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Vince Weaver's message of "Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:58:35 -0500 (EST)") Message-ID: <87iouxjvz6.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Vince, On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:58:35 -0500 (EST), Vince Weaver wrote: > Hello, > > "perf list" listing of hardware events doesn't work on older ARM devices. > The change enabling event detection: > > commit b41f1cec91c37eeea6fdb15effbfa24ea0a5536b > Author: Namhyung Kim > Date: Tue Aug 27 11:41:53 2013 +0900 > > perf list: Skip unsupported events > > > uses the following code in tools/perf/util/parse-events.c: > > struct perf_event_attr attr = { > .type = type, > .config = config, > .disabled = 1, > .exclude_kernel = 1, > }; > > On ARM machines pre-dating the Cortex-A15 this doesn't work, as > these machines don't support .exclude_kernel. So starting with 3.12 > "perf list" does not report any hardware events at all on older > machines (seen on Rasp-Pi, Pandaboard, Beagleboard, etc). > > If we drop the "exclude_kernel" attribute events are properly reported. Okay, the reason I set the bit was consideration of a very strict perf_event_paranoid setting (-2). So maybe we can try it again with the bit cleared after a failure, or checking the paranoid setting first. Thanks, Namhyung