Re: [PATCH v2 02/17] perf tools: Configure timestsamp generation in CPU-wide mode

[Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 03:41, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 24/05/2019 18:34, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > When operating in CPU-wide mode tracers need to generate timestamps in
> > order to correlate the code being traced on one CPU with what is executed
> > on other CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >   tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> > index 3912f0bf04ed..be1e4f20affa 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> > @@ -99,6 +99,54 @@ static int cs_etm_set_context_id(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> >       return err;
> >   }
> >
> > +static int cs_etm_set_timestamp(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> > +                             struct perf_evsel *evsel, int cpu)
> > +{
> > +     struct cs_etm_recording *ptr;
> > +     struct perf_pmu *cs_etm_pmu;
> > +     char path[PATH_MAX];
> > +     int err = -EINVAL;
> > +     u32 val;
> > +
> > +     ptr = container_of(itr, struct cs_etm_recording, itr);
> > +     cs_etm_pmu = ptr->cs_etm_pmu;
> > +
> > +     if (!cs_etm_is_etmv4(itr, cpu))
> > +             goto out;
> > +
> > +     /* Get a handle on TRCIRD0 */
> > +     snprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "cpu%d/%s",
> > +              cpu, metadata_etmv4_ro[CS_ETMV4_TRCIDR0]);
> > +     err = perf_pmu__scan_file(cs_etm_pmu, path, "%x", &val);
> > +
> > +     /* There was a problem reading the file, bailing out */
> > +     if (err != 1) {
> > +             pr_err("%s: can't read file %s\n",
> > +                    CORESIGHT_ETM_PMU_NAME, path);
> > +             goto out;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     /*
> > +      * TRCIDR0.TSSIZE, bit [28-24], indicates whether global timestamping
> > +      * is supported:
> > +      *  0b00000 Global timestamping is not implemented
> > +      *  0b00110 Implementation supports a maximum timestamp of 48bits.
> > +      *  0b01000 Implementation supports a maximum timestamp of 64bits.
> > +      */
> > +     val &= GENMASK(28, 24);
> > +     if (!val) {
> > +             err = -EINVAL;
> > +             goto out;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     /* All good, let the kernel know */
> > +     evsel->attr.config |= (1 << ETM_OPT_TS);
> > +     err = 0;
> > +
> > +out:
> > +     return err;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static int cs_etm_set_option(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> >                            struct perf_evsel *evsel, u32 option)
> >   {
> > @@ -118,6 +166,11 @@ static int cs_etm_set_option(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> >                       if (err)
> >                               goto out;
> >                       break;
> > +             case ETM_OPT_TS:
> > +                     err = cs_etm_set_timestamp(itr, evsel, i);
> > +                     if (err)
> > +                             goto out;
> > +                     break;
> >               default:
> >                       goto out;
> >               }
> > @@ -343,6 +396,10 @@ static int cs_etm_recording_options(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> >               err = cs_etm_set_option(itr, cs_etm_evsel, ETM_OPT_CTXTID);
> >               if (err)
> >                       goto out;
> > +
> > +             err = cs_etm_set_option(itr, cs_etm_evsel, ETM_OPT_TS);
> > +             if (err)
> > +                     goto out;
>
> nit: Could we not do this in one shot, say :
>
>         cs_etm_set_option(itr, cs_etm_evsel, ETM_OPT_TS | ETM_OPT_CTXTID) ?
>
> rather than iterating over the per-CPU events twice ? The cs_etm_set_option()
> could simply replace the switch() to :
>
>         if (option & ETM_OPT_1)
>                 do_something_for_1()
>         if (option & ETM_OPT_2)
>                 do_something_for_2();
>         if (option & ~(ETM_OPT_1 | ETM_OPT_2 |...))
>                 /* do unsupported option */
>

Yes, that is a good optimization.

Arnaldo, do you prefer a new set or another patch on top of this one?

Thanks,
Mathieu

>
> Cheers
> Suzuki

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel