From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751279AbdFEPzU (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:55:20 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34578 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153AbdFEPzS (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:55:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 10:55:16 -0500 From: Kim Phillips To: Will Deacon Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Message-Id: <20170605105516.b09400781b2bde1621a44205@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <1496676177-29356-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> References: <1496676177-29356-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1496676177-29356-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> Organization: ARM X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; 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 Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:22:56 +0100 Will Deacon wrote: > +/* 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; > + > + 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; > +} AFAICT, my comments from the last submission have still not been fully addressed: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-May/508027.html Thanks, Kim From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kim.phillips@arm.com (Kim Phillips) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 10:55:16 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v4 4/5] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension In-Reply-To: <1496676177-29356-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> References: <1496676177-29356-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1496676177-29356-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> Message-ID: <20170605105516.b09400781b2bde1621a44205@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:22:56 +0100 Will Deacon wrote: > +/* 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; > + > + 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; > +} AFAICT, my comments from the last submission have still not been fully addressed: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-May/508027.html Thanks, Kim