lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] x86/intel_rdt and perf/x86: Fix lack of coordination with perf
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 12:50:50PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> In my previous email I provided the details of the Cache Pseudo-Locking
> feature implemented on top of resctrl. Please let me know if you would
> like any more details about that. I can send you more materials.

I've no yet had time to read..

> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> kernel/locking/mutex.c:748
>
> I thus continued to use the API with interrupts enabled did the following:
>
> Two new event attributes:
> static struct perf_event_attr l2_miss_attr = {
> .type = PERF_TYPE_RAW,
> .config = (0x10ULL << 8) | 0xd1,

Please use something like:

X86_CONFIG(.event=0xd1, .umask=0x10),

that's ever so much more readable.

> .size = sizeof(struct perf_event_attr),
> .pinned = 1,
> .disabled = 1,
> .exclude_user = 1
> };
>
> static struct perf_event_attr l2_hit_attr = {
> .type = PERF_TYPE_RAW,
> .config = (0x2ULL << 8) | 0xd1,
> .size = sizeof(struct perf_event_attr),
> .pinned = 1,
> .disabled = 1,
> .exclude_user = 1
> };
>
> Create the two new events using these attributes:
> l2_miss_event = perf_event_create_kernel_counter(&l2_miss_attr, cpu,
> NULL, NULL, NULL);
> l2_hit_event = perf_event_create_kernel_counter(&l2_hit_attr, cpu, NULL,
> NULL, NULL);
>
> Take measurements:
> perf_event_enable(l2_miss_event);
> perf_event_enable(l2_hit_event);
> local_irq_disable();
> /* Disable hardware prefetchers */
> /* Loop through pseudo-locked memory */
> /* Enable hardware prefetchers */
> local_irq_enable();
> perf_event_disable(l2_hit_event);
> perf_event_disable(l2_miss_event);
>
> Read results:
> l2_hits = perf_event_read_value(l2_hit_event, &enabled, &running);
> l2_miss = perf_event_read_value(l2_miss_event, &enabled, &running);
> /* Make results available in tracepoints */

switch to .disabled=0 and try this for measurement:

local_irq_disable();
perf_event_read_local(l2_miss_event, &miss_val1, NULL, NULL);
perf_event_read_local(l2_hit_event, &hit_val1, NULL, NULL);
/* do your thing */
perf_event_read_local(l2_miss_event, &miss_val2, NULL, NULL);
perf_event_read_local(l2_hit_event, &hit_val2, NULL, NULL);
local_irq_enable();

You're running this on the CPU you created the event for, right?

> With the above implementation and a 256KB pseudo-locked memory region I
> obtain the following results:
> pseudo_lock_mea-755 [002] .... 396.946953: pseudo_lock_l2: hits=4140

> The above results are not accurate since it does not reflect the success
> of the pseudo-locked region. Expected results are as we can currently
> obtain (copying results from previous email):
> pseudo_lock_mea-26090 [002] .... 61838.488027: pseudo_lock_l2: hits=4096

Still fairly close.. only like 44 extra hits or 1% error.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-07 00:13    [W:0.063 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site