Re: [PATCH 00/10] perf, x86: Add northbridge counter support for AMD family 15h

[Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>]

On 20.06.12 12:46:21, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com> wrote:
> > On 20.06.12 11:38:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 11:29 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> >> > Second, since nb perfctr are implemented the same way as core
> >> > counters, the same code would have been used. Thus multiple (two) x86
> >> > pmus (struct x86_pmu) would reside in parallel in the kernel.
> >>
> >> Well, no. The I take it the uncore counters are nb wide, thus you need
> >> special goo to make counter rotation work properly, x86_pmu is unsuited
> >> for that.
> >
> > The code for nb and core counters is identical. There would be the
> > same nmi handler, same code to setup the event, same code to
> > start/stop cpus. The only difference are per-node msrs, even the msr
> > offset calculation is the same as for core counters on family 15h. It
> > would not make sense to duplicate all this code. And, as said, current
> > design does not fit to use x86_pmus in parallel or to easy reuse x86
> > functions. Separating nb counters would make the same sense as
> > implementing a separate pmu for fixed counters.
> >
> Being identical does not necessarily mean you have to copy the code,
> you can also simply call it.

You can't use two x86_pmu in parallel in the kernel. Code is not
designed for this. The effort of changing the code to support this is
very high.

> I don't see the explanation for the non-contiguous counter indexes.
> What's that about? With a separate PMU, would you have that problem.
> I see uncore CTL base MSRC001_0240, next is 0242, and so on. But
> that's already the case with core counters on Fam15h.

The counters reside in msrs MSRC001_0200 to MSRC001_027f with two msrs
per counter. This is room for 64 counters. NB counters start at index
32 which is MSRC001_0240.

> As Peter said, having your own PMU would alleviate the need for
> Patch 10. Those filters would simply not be visible to tools via
> sysfs.

That's what I explained in an earlier thread about pmu descriptions in
sysfs. It is not possible to describe a complex pmu in sysfs. My
preference that time was the use of pmu ops in userland and not a
single generic pmu that is configured by sysfs.

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center