From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932096AbdDFSdd (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:33:33 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:47600 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752436AbdDFSdT (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:33:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 19:33:07 +0100 From: Kim Phillips To: Will Deacon Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Message-Id: <20170406193307.e1046706e122d80c036ad1a9@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <1491495496-1524-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> References: <1491495496-1524-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1491495496-1524-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> Organization: ARM X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:18:15 +0100 Will Deacon wrote: Hi Will, > +/* Perf callbacks */ > +static int arm_spe_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event) > +{ > + u64 reg; > + struct perf_event_attr *attr = &event->attr; > + struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu = to_spe_pmu(event->pmu); > + > + /* This is, of course, deeply driver-specific */ > + if (attr->type != event->pmu->type) > + return -ENOENT; > + > + if (event->cpu >= 0 && > + !cpumask_test_cpu(event->cpu, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus)) > + return -ENOENT; > + > + if (arm_spe_event_to_pmsevfr(event) & PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if (event->hw.sample_period < spe_pmu->min_period || > + event->hw.sample_period & PMSIRR_EL1_IVAL_MASK) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if (attr->exclude_idle) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + /* > + * Feedback-directed frequency throttling doesn't work when we > + * have a buffer of samples. We'd need to manually count the > + * samples in the buffer when it fills up and adjust the event > + * count to reflect that. Instead, force the user to specify a > + * sample period instead. > + */ > + if (attr->freq) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { > + if (attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } else if (!attr->exclude_hv) { > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } > + > + reg = arm_spe_event_to_pmsfcr(event); > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FE_SHIFT)) && > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_EVT)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FT_SHIFT)) && > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_TYP)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FL_SHIFT)) && > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_LAT)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + return 0; > +} Can you please explain why we're not emitting messages to dmesg here?: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9545979/ I sure find them useful. Thanks, Kim From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kim.phillips@arm.com (Kim Phillips) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 19:33:07 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 5/6] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension In-Reply-To: <1491495496-1524-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> References: <1491495496-1524-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1491495496-1524-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> Message-ID: <20170406193307.e1046706e122d80c036ad1a9@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:18:15 +0100 Will Deacon wrote: Hi Will, > +/* Perf callbacks */ > +static int arm_spe_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event) > +{ > + u64 reg; > + struct perf_event_attr *attr = &event->attr; > + struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu = to_spe_pmu(event->pmu); > + > + /* This is, of course, deeply driver-specific */ > + if (attr->type != event->pmu->type) > + return -ENOENT; > + > + if (event->cpu >= 0 && > + !cpumask_test_cpu(event->cpu, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus)) > + return -ENOENT; > + > + if (arm_spe_event_to_pmsevfr(event) & PMSEVFR_EL1_RES0) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if (event->hw.sample_period < spe_pmu->min_period || > + event->hw.sample_period & PMSIRR_EL1_IVAL_MASK) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if (attr->exclude_idle) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + /* > + * Feedback-directed frequency throttling doesn't work when we > + * have a buffer of samples. We'd need to manually count the > + * samples in the buffer when it fills up and adjust the event > + * count to reflect that. Instead, force the user to specify a > + * sample period instead. > + */ > + if (attr->freq) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { > + if (attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } else if (!attr->exclude_hv) { > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } > + > + reg = arm_spe_event_to_pmsfcr(event); > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FE_SHIFT)) && > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_EVT)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FT_SHIFT)) && > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_TYP)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FL_SHIFT)) && > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_LAT)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + return 0; > +} Can you please explain why we're not emitting messages to dmesg here?: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9545979/ I sure find them useful. Thanks, Kim