Re: [PATCH 00/13] Add support for perf_arch_regs

[Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 09:31 PM, Nilay Vaish wrote:
> On 28 August 2016 at 16:00, Madhavan Srinivasan
> <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Patchset to extend PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR to include
>> platform specific PMU registers.
>>
>> Patchset applies cleanly on tip:perf/core branch
>>
>> It's a perennial request from hardware folks to be able to
>> see the raw values of the pmu registers. Partly it's so that
>> they can verify perf is doing what they want, and some
>> of it is that they're interested in some of the more obscure
>> info that isn't plumbed out through other perf interfaces.
>>
>> Over the years internally we have used various hack to get
>> the requested data out but this is an attempt to use a
>> somewhat standard mechanism (using PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR).
>>
>> This would also be helpful for those of us working on the perf
>> hardware backends, to be able to verify that we're programming
>> things correctly, without resorting to debug printks etc.
>>
>> Mechanism proposed:
>>
>> 1)perf_regs structure is extended with a perf_arch_regs structure
>> which each arch/ can populate with their specific platform
>> registers to sample on each perf interrupt and an arch_regs_mask
>> variable, which is for perf tool to know about the perf_arch_regs
>> that are supported.
>>
>> 2)perf/core func perf_sample_regs_intr() extended to update
>> the perf_arch_regs structure and the perf_arch_reg_mask. Set of new
>> support functions added perf_get_arch_regs_mask() and
>> perf_get_arch_reg() to aid the updates from arch/ side.
>>
>> 3) perf/core funcs perf_prepare_sample() and perf_output_sample()
>> are extended to support the update for the perf_arch_regs_mask and
>> perf_arch_regs in the sample
>>
>> 4)perf/core func perf_output_sample_regs() extended to dump
>> the arch_regs to the output sample.
>>
>> 5)Finally, perf tool side is updated to include a new element
>> "arch_regs_mask" in the "struct regs_dump", event sample funcs
>> and print functions are updated to support perf_arch_regs.
>>
> I read the patch series and I have one suggestion to make.  I think we
> should not use 'arch regs' to refer to these pmu registers.  I think
Reason is that they are arch specific pmu regs. But I guess we can go with
pmu_regs also. And having a "pregs" as option to list in -I? will be fine?
(patch 13 in the patch series)


Maddy

> architectural registers typically refer to the ones that hold the
> state of the process.  Can we replace arch_regs by pmu_regs, or some
> other choice?
>
> Thanks
> Nilay
>