From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] powerpc/8xx: Perf events on PPC 8xx
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:16:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161214091629.GP3124@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8f8cb2298b929e0db5181c273b638ea6f5bf41e0.1481652710.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:19:43PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> +int mpc8xx_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + int type = event_type(event);
> +
> + switch (type) {
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_CPU_CYCLES:
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_ITLB_LOAD_MISS:
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_DTLB_LOAD_MISS:
> + break;
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_HW_INSTRUCTIONS:
> + mtspr(SPRN_CMPA, 0);
Should that not live in init_mpc8xx_pmu() ?
Afaict its a one time setup thing.
> + break;
> + default:
> + return type;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int mpc8xx_pmu_add(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
> +{
> + int type = event_type(event);
> + s64 val;
> +
> + switch (type) {
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_CPU_CYCLES:
> + val = get_tb();
> + break;
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_HW_INSTRUCTIONS:
> + val = (instruction_counter << 16) | 0xffff;
> + mtspr(SPRN_COUNTA, 0xffff0001);
> + mtspr(SPRN_ICTRL, 0xc0080007);
> + break;
So this sets up the counter and starts counting, right?
What happens if someone adds two events of this type?
Also, typical implementations would do:
if (flags & PERF_EF_START)
mpc8xx_pmu_start(event, flags);
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_ITLB_LOAD_MISS:
> + val = itlb_miss_counter;
> + break;
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_DTLB_LOAD_MISS:
> + val = dtlb_miss_counter;
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
> + local64_set(&event->hw.prev_count, val);
Right, so aside from that INSTRUCTION event, the rest is treated like
freerunning counters which is fine.
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void mpc8xx_pmu_read(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + int type = event_type(event);
> + s64 prev, val, delta;
> +
> + prev = local64_read(&event->hw.prev_count);
> + switch (type) {
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_CPU_CYCLES:
> + val = get_tb();
> + delta = 16 * (val - prev);
> + break;
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_HW_INSTRUCTIONS:
> + mtspr(SPRN_ICTRL, 7);
> + val = (instruction_counter << 16) | (0xffff - (mfspr(SPRN_COUNTA) >> 16));
> + mtspr(SPRN_ICTRL, 0xc0080007);
> + delta = val - prev;
> + break;
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_ITLB_LOAD_MISS:
> + val = itlb_miss_counter;
> + delta = val - prev;
> + break;
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_DTLB_LOAD_MISS:
> + val = dtlb_miss_counter;
> + delta = val - prev;
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
> + local64_set(&event->hw.prev_count, val);
> + local64_add(delta, &event->count);
> +}
So there is one case, where we group this event with a software hrtimer
event and the hrtimer would call ::read() from interrupt context while
you're already in ::read().
This seems to suggest you still need a cmpxchg() loop to update, no?
> +void mpc8xx_pmu_del(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
> +{
> + int type = event_type(event);
> + s64 prev, val;
> +
> + prev = local64_read(&event->hw.prev_count);
> + switch (type) {
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_HW_INSTRUCTIONS:
> + mtspr(SPRN_ICTRL, 7);
> + val = (instruction_counter << 16) | (0xffff - (mfspr(SPRN_COUNTA) >> 16));
> + local64_add(val - prev, &event->count);
> + break;
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_CPU_CYCLES:
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_ITLB_LOAD_MISS:
> + case PERF_8xx_ID_DTLB_LOAD_MISS:
> + mpc8xx_pmu_read(event);
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
Right, so you make all del()'s imply PERF_EF_UPDATE, which is fine.
> +}
> +
> +void mpc8xx_pmu_start(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +void mpc8xx_pmu_stop(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
> +{
> +}
So I think you can get away with doing this because the PMU doesn't do
sampling, which is what would normally start/stop already programmed
counters.
> +static struct pmu mpc8xx_pmu = {
> + .event_init = mpc8xx_pmu_event_init,
> + .add = mpc8xx_pmu_add,
> + .del = mpc8xx_pmu_del,
> + .start = mpc8xx_pmu_start,
> + .stop = mpc8xx_pmu_stop,
> + .read = mpc8xx_pmu_read,
.capabilities = PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT |
PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_NMI,
> +};
> +
> +static int init_mpc8xx_pmu(void)
> +{
> + return perf_pmu_register(&mpc8xx_pmu, "cpu", PERF_TYPE_RAW);
> +}
> +
> +early_initcall(init_mpc8xx_pmu);
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-14 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1481652710.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
2016-12-13 18:19 ` [RFC 1/2] powerpc/32: Unset MSR RI in exception epilogs Christophe Leroy
2016-12-13 19:15 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-12-13 20:39 ` christophe leroy
2016-12-13 22:54 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-12-14 8:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 18:19 ` [RFC 2/2] powerpc/8xx: Perf events on PPC 8xx Christophe Leroy
2016-12-14 9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161214091629.GP3124@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=oss@buserror.net \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome