lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 7/7] arm64: perf: Add support for chaining event counters
From
Date
On 03/07/18 14:00, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 10:59:48PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Add support for 64bit event by using chained event counters
>> and 64bit cycle counters.
>>
>> PMUv3 allows chaining a pair of adjacent 32-bit counters, effectively
>> forming a 64-bit counter. The low/even counter is programmed to count
>> the event of interest, and the high/odd counter is programmed to count
>> the CHAIN event, taken when the low/even counter overflows.
>>
>> For CPU cycles, when 64bit mode is requested, the cycle counter
>> is used in 64bit mode. If the cycle counter is not available,
>> falls back to chaining.
>>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v3:
>> - Rename format name from "bits64 => long"
>> - Address other comments on style.
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 185 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 13 ++-
>> 2 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
>> +static int armv8pmu_get_chain_idx(struct pmu_hw_events *cpuc,
>> + struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
>> +{
>> + int idx;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Chaining requires two consecutive event counters, where
>> + * the lower idx must be even.
>> + */
>> + for (idx = ARMV8_IDX_COUNTER0 + 1; idx < cpu_pmu->num_events; idx += 2) {
>> + if (!test_and_set_bit(idx, cpuc->used_mask)) {
>> + /* Check if the preceding even counter is available */
>> + if (!test_and_set_bit(idx - 1, cpuc->used_mask))
>> + return idx;
>> + /* Release the Odd counter */
>> + clear_bit(idx, cpuc->used_mask);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> +}
>
> This means that we'll sometimes fail to pack events, but I guess that
> most of the time the rotation logic will save us.
>
> We might need to defer counter allocation in future if that's a real
> problem.

Ok.

>
>> @@ -665,14 +665,13 @@ static void cpu_pm_pmu_setup(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, unsigned long cmd)
>> int idx;
>>
>> for (idx = 0; idx < armpmu->num_events; idx++) {
>> - /*
>> - * If the counter is not used skip it, there is no
>> - * need of stopping/restarting it.
>> - */
>> - if (!test_bit(idx, hw_events->used_mask))
>> - continue;
>> -
>> event = hw_events->events[idx];
>> + /*
>> + * If there is no event at this idx (e.g, an idx used
>> + * by a chained event in Arm v8 PMUv3), skip it.
>> + */
>> + if (!event)
>> + continue;
>
> I think we can drop the comment here.
>
> Other than the above and the xscale fixup, this looks good to me.

Thanks, I will fix it up.

>
> Have you thrown the perf fuzzer at this?

I tried fuzzer on the earlier version, but the fuzzer itself crashes
due to its own bug (even without the series). I vaguely remember that it
gets SIGSEGV due to some operation on an fd (which was a tty).
I will re-run it on the latest series with 4.18-rc3.


Thanks
Suzuki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-03 15:13    [W:0.059 / U:9.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site