From: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: mikey@neuling.org, maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] tools/perf: Add perf tools support for extended register capability in powerpc
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 08:40:22 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <FFC0AE06-9BF8-446C-B6D8-C4D62B61FDBE@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pn962owo.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6308 bytes --]
> On 08-Jul-2020, at 5:34 PM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com <mailto:atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>> writes:
>> From: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Add extended regs to sample_reg_mask in the tool side to use
>> with `-I?` option. Perf tools side uses extended mask to display
>> the platform supported register names (with -I? option) to the user
>> and also send this mask to the kernel to capture the extended registers
>> in each sample. Hence decide the mask value based on the processor
>> version.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> [Decide extended mask at run time based on platform]
>> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Will need an ack from perf tools folks, who are not on Cc by the looks.
>
Yes, my bad. Will make sure to add proper Cc
>> diff --git a/tools/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h b/tools/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h
>> index f599064..485b1d5 100644
>> --- a/tools/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h
>> +++ b/tools/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h
>> @@ -48,6 +48,18 @@ enum perf_event_powerpc_regs {
>> PERF_REG_POWERPC_DSISR,
>> PERF_REG_POWERPC_SIER,
>> PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCRA,
>> - PERF_REG_POWERPC_MAX,
>> + /* Extended registers */
>> + PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR0,
>> + PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR1,
>> + PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR2,
>> + /* Max regs without the extended regs */
>> + PERF_REG_POWERPC_MAX = PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCRA + 1,
>
> I don't really understand this idea of a max that's not the max.
>
>> };
>> +
>> +#define PERF_REG_PMU_MASK ((1ULL << PERF_REG_POWERPC_MAX) - 1)
>> +
>> +/* PERF_REG_EXTENDED_MASK value for CPU_FTR_ARCH_300 */
>> +#define PERF_REG_PMU_MASK_300 (((1ULL << (PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR2 + 1)) - 1) \
>> + - PERF_REG_PMU_MASK)
>> +
>> #endif /* _UAPI_ASM_POWERPC_PERF_REGS_H */
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/include/perf_regs.h
>> index e18a355..46ed00d 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/include/perf_regs.h
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/include/perf_regs.h
>> @@ -64,7 +64,10 @@
>> [PERF_REG_POWERPC_DAR] = "dar",
>> [PERF_REG_POWERPC_DSISR] = "dsisr",
>> [PERF_REG_POWERPC_SIER] = "sier",
>> - [PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCRA] = "mmcra"
>> + [PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCRA] = "mmcra",
>> + [PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR0] = "mmcr0",
>> + [PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR1] = "mmcr1",
>> + [PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR2] = "mmcr2",
>> };
>>
>> static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/perf_regs.c b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/perf_regs.c
>> index 0a52429..9179230 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/perf_regs.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/perf_regs.c
>> @@ -6,9 +6,14 @@
>>
>> #include "../../../util/perf_regs.h"
>> #include "../../../util/debug.h"
>> +#include "../../../util/event.h"
>> +#include "../../../util/header.h"
>> +#include "../../../perf-sys.h"
>>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>
>> +#define PVR_POWER9 0x004E
>> +
>> const struct sample_reg sample_reg_masks[] = {
>> SMPL_REG(r0, PERF_REG_POWERPC_R0),
>> SMPL_REG(r1, PERF_REG_POWERPC_R1),
>> @@ -55,6 +60,9 @@
>> SMPL_REG(dsisr, PERF_REG_POWERPC_DSISR),
>> SMPL_REG(sier, PERF_REG_POWERPC_SIER),
>> SMPL_REG(mmcra, PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCRA),
>> + SMPL_REG(mmcr0, PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR0),
>> + SMPL_REG(mmcr1, PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR1),
>> + SMPL_REG(mmcr2, PERF_REG_POWERPC_MMCR2),
>> SMPL_REG_END
>> };
>>
>> @@ -163,3 +171,50 @@ int arch_sdt_arg_parse_op(char *old_op, char **new_op)
>>
>> return SDT_ARG_VALID;
>> }
>> +
>> +uint64_t arch__intr_reg_mask(void)
>> +{
>> + struct perf_event_attr attr = {
>> + .type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE,
>> + .config = PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES,
>> + .sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR,
>> + .precise_ip = 1,
>> + .disabled = 1,
>> + .exclude_kernel = 1,
>> + };
>> + int fd, ret;
>> + char buffer[64];
>> + u32 version;
>> + u64 extended_mask = 0;
>> +
>> + /* Get the PVR value to set the extended
>> + * mask specific to platform
>
> Comment format is wrong, and punctuation please.
>
>> + */
>> + get_cpuid(buffer, sizeof(buffer));
>> + ret = sscanf(buffer, "%u,", &version);
>
> This is powerpc specific code, why not just use mfspr(SPRN_PVR), rather
> than redirecting via printf/sscanf.
Hi Michael
For perf tools, defines for `mfspr` , `SPRN_PVR` are in arch/powerpc/util/header.c
So I have re-used existing utility. Otherwise, we will need to include these defines here as well
Does that sounds good ?
>
>> +
>> + if (ret != 1) {
>> + pr_debug("Failed to get the processor version, unable to output extended registers\n");
>> + return PERF_REGS_MASK;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (version == PVR_POWER9)
>> + extended_mask = PERF_REG_PMU_MASK_300;
>> + else
>> + return PERF_REGS_MASK;
>> +
>> + attr.sample_regs_intr = extended_mask;
>> + attr.sample_period = 1;
>> + event_attr_init(&attr);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * check if the pmu supports perf extended regs, before
>> + * returning the register mask to sample.
>> + */
>> + fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, 0, -1, -1, 0);
>> + if (fd != -1) {
>> + close(fd);
>> + return (extended_mask | PERF_REGS_MASK);
>> + }
>> + return PERF_REGS_MASK;
>
> I think this would read a bit better like:
>
> mask = PERF_REGS_MASK;
>
> if (version == PVR_POWER9)
> extended_mask = PERF_REG_PMU_MASK_300;
> else
> return mask;
>
> attr.sample_regs_intr = extended_mask;
> attr.sample_period = 1;
> event_attr_init(&attr);
>
> /*
> * check if the pmu supports perf extended regs, before
> * returning the register mask to sample.
> */
> fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, 0, -1, -1, 0);
> if (fd != -1) {
> close(fd);
> mask |= extended_mask;
> }
>
> return mask;
Sure, I will try with this change
Thanks
Athira
>
>
> cheers
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 43844 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-09 4:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-01 9:20 [PATCH v2 00/10] powerpc/perf: Add support for power10 PMU Hardware Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:20 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] powerpc/perf: Add support for ISA3.1 PMU SPRs Athira Rajeev
2020-07-08 11:02 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-09 1:53 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-13 12:50 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-15 6:07 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:20 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Save/restore new PMU registers Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 11:11 ` Paul Mackerras
2020-07-02 6:22 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-07 6:13 ` Michael Neuling
2020-07-01 9:20 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] powerpc/xmon: Add PowerISA v3.1 PMU SPRs Athira Rajeev
2020-07-08 11:04 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-09 1:57 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:20 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] powerpc/perf: Add power10_feat to dt_cpu_ftrs Athira Rajeev
2020-07-07 6:22 ` Michael Neuling
2020-07-08 2:13 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-08 11:15 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-09 11:07 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:20 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] powerpc/perf: Update Power PMU cache_events to u64 type Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:20 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] powerpc/perf: power10 Performance Monitoring support Athira Rajeev
2020-07-02 9:06 ` kernel test robot
2020-07-07 6:50 ` Michael Neuling
2020-07-08 10:56 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:20 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] powerpc/perf: support BHRB disable bit and new filtering modes Athira Rajeev
2020-07-07 7:17 ` Michael Neuling
2020-07-08 7:41 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-08 7:43 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-09 2:01 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-08 11:42 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-09 2:43 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:21 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] powerpc/perf: Add support for outputting extended regs in perf intr_regs Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:21 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] tools/perf: Add perf tools support for extended register capability in powerpc Athira Rajeev
2020-07-08 12:04 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-09 3:10 ` Athira Rajeev [this message]
2020-07-13 12:47 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-13 2:36 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-01 9:21 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] powerpc/perf: Add extended regs support for power10 platform Athira Rajeev
2020-07-02 9:40 ` kernel test robot
2020-07-08 1:53 ` Athira Rajeev
2020-07-08 12:04 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-09 6:29 ` Athira Rajeev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=FFC0AE06-9BF8-446C-B6D8-C4D62B61FDBE@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).