From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF81C433DB for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:09:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681FD65012 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:09:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229608AbhCELJV (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2021 06:09:21 -0500 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]:2621 "EHLO frasgout.his.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229597AbhCELI7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2021 06:08:59 -0500 Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DsPtF5QC2z67jpW; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 19:01:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 12:08:57 +0100 Received: from [10.47.8.182] (10.47.8.182) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:08:55 +0000 From: John Garry Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf metricgroup: Support printing metrics for arm64 To: Jiri Olsa CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <1614784938-27080-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <1614784938-27080-2-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> Message-ID: <95205463-4c80-4e8a-a7c0-c2a4e4553838@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:06:58 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.47.8.182] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) To lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jirka, >> - struct pmu_events_map *map = perf_pmu__find_map(NULL); >> + struct pmu_events_map *map = find_cpumap(); > so this is just for arm at the moment right? > Yes - but to be more accurate, arm64. At the moment, from the archs which use pmu-events, only arm64 and nds32 have versions of get_cpuid_str() which require a non-NULL pmu argument. But then apparently nds32 only supports a single CPU, so this issue of heterogeneous CPUs should not be a concern there :) > could we rather make this arch specific code, so we don't need > to do the scanning on archs where this is not needed? > > like marking perf_pmu__find_map as __weak and add arm specific > version? Well I was thinking that this code should not be in metricgroup.c anyway. So there is code which is common in current perf_pmu__find_map() for all archs. I could factor that out into a common function, below. Just a bit worried about perf_pmu__find_map() and perf_pmu__find_pmu_map() being confused. Here's how that would look: +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/pmu.c #include "../../util/cpumap.h" #include "../../util/pmu.h" struct pmu_events_map *perf_pmu__find_map(void) { struct perf_pmu *pmu = perf_pmu__find("armv8_pmuv3_0"); if (!pmu || !pmu->cpus || pmu->cpus->nr != cpu__max_cpu()) return NULL; return perf_pmu__find_pmu_map(pmu); } And: diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c index 26c990e32378..312164ce9299 100644 --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static int metricgroup__print_sys_event_iter(struct pmu_event *pe, void *data) void metricgroup__print(bool metrics, bool metricgroups, char *filter, bool raw, bool details) { - struct pmu_events_map *map = perf_pmu__find_map(NULL); + struct pmu_events_map *map = perf_pmu__find_map(); struct pmu_event *pe; int i; struct rblist groups; @@ -1253,8 +1253,7 @@ int metricgroup__parse_groups(const struct option *opt, struct rblist *metric_events) { struct evlist *perf_evlist = *(struct evlist **)opt->value; - struct pmu_events_map *map = perf_pmu__find_map(NULL); - + struct pmu_events_map *map = perf_pmu__find_map(); return parse_groups(perf_evlist, str, metric_no_group, metric_no_merge, NULL, metric_events, map); @@ -1273,7 +1272,7 @@ int metricgroup__parse_groups_test(struct evlist *evlist, bool metricgroup__has_metric(const char *metric) { - struct pmu_events_map *map = perf_pmu__find_map(NULL); + struct pmu_events_map *map = perf_pmu__find_map(); struct pmu_event *pe; int i; diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c index 44ef28302fc7..d49bf20b6058 100644 --- a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c +++ b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c @@ -690,7 +690,7 @@ static char *perf_pmu__getcpuid(struct perf_pmu *pmu) return cpuid; } -struct pmu_events_map *perf_pmu__find_map(struct perf_pmu *pmu) +struct pmu_events_map *perf_pmu__find_pmu_map(struct perf_pmu *pmu) { struct pmu_events_map *map; char *cpuid = perf_pmu__getcpuid(pmu); @@ -717,6 +717,11 @@ struct pmu_events_map *perf_pmu__find_map(struct perf_pmu *pmu) return map; } +struct pmu_events_map *__weak perf_pmu__find_map(void) +{ + return perf_pmu__find_pmu_map(NULL); +} + bool pmu_uncore_alias_match(const char *pmu_name, const char *name) { char *tmp = NULL, *tok, *str; @@ -805,7 +810,7 @@ static void pmu_add_cpu_aliases(struct list_head *head, struct perf_pmu *pmu) { struct pmu_events_map *map; - map = perf_pmu__find_map(pmu); + map = perf_pmu__find_pmu_map(pmu); if (!map) return; Thoughts? Thanks!