tree 6ae33c7a2aa41c01e11cba9ab82417dcc1e46d57
parent 5b6386dcbd68d3f7c1ce98dd7acdd4477d5724ad
author Roman Belenov <103195329+r-belenov@users.noreply.github.com> 1743379193 +0300
committer GitHub <noreply@github.com> 1743379193 -0700
gpgsig -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 wsFcBAABCAAQBQJn6dr5CRC1aQ7uu5UhlAAAECUQAG90cf57fsEeclss0v1bzW05
 8kuWVuzeJEHNDQxVZjfKFrirzFzi0h5ralAtn0jMHpeXhccYnlzCDrLl2ouuYylo
 wPXaxuK6vTW4hf40BNg5OCIZDKpAZKjW4ESJcH7DPGk5YHXDlo+6qi15YlV+Mdrv
 MrZi+f5izZ4f7A78lMoLJv7+q3hxoj8e1wRdeexbTId6uWTeb988rqlhm44i7dlh
 VXzdN30YEunAaDknFPe6vXifDSzf4ansLnTuFeA1F1E0T0IcxdC1VeBcUaMHBYfJ
 UQjA7NK8pepWPI+xidYE5rD8ntEU7/TA5HH9xxp1/mU5v4/jVBxnfLfaWdA0p8X6
 58UnPzrYLgfGVeTnNhKiAkn1uGT2kkdIypBXG2tENfzwmmNvhMdrDFL6Bl/tVCSw
 KKfos4nutV/2diFuk+OC+OSGQMvMEsCL7sH1JJmsZAfkqCsGUY7oisUUPNdV4a5Q
 zvixq+byIBNuSx93o4GnnW6c0B0rzWfApb56QRb+ToT/iG4neY2x2oQcw0uBxMDe
 Lh3ZFxn/NiHJ30Htp6GRulj5QxNpMNdP0l2mdNwxliajzKsHbFDKHB+cJb5dZJ4d
 4P2wruLerZJxjZURNos9fJPgQCqJQZGMcE6FZfGNQlMsMIL7IuAowokmwC4u5e29
 EoXYTaRGGTWWElE6NrwG
 =MVY0
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 

[Exegesis][AArch64] Use more generic cycles counter (#133376)

CPU_CYCLES counter does not work on some Aarch64 CPUs; CYCLES is more
generic and is equivalent to CPU_CYCLES in case the latter is supported.

Longer story - CPU_CYCLES work only on CPU models explicitly recognized
by libpfm4 ( via pfm_arm_detect_*() functions in
https://sourceforge.net/p/perfmon2/libpfm4/ci/master/tree/lib/pfmlib_arm_armv8.c
) and its name is consistent with ARM documentation. However, the
counter is architectural and is supported on all ARMv8 CPUs; libpfm4
recognizes generic PMU on unknown ARMv8 CPUs, but does not provide
CPU_CYCLES event. Instead, CYCLES is provided (an alias to
PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES). Physically, it is the same event with code
0x11. On supported architectures CYCLES also work, so the change should
not introduce regression.