From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752174AbeCCPlX (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2018 10:41:23 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:43078 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751894AbeCCPlW (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2018 10:41:22 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 16:41:13 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , avilaj@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] perf/core: Add support for PMUs that can be read from any CPU Message-ID: <20180303154113.GH25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1519431578-11995-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <1519431578-11995-2-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <20180224084106.GC25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <7cab1b91545e81e4b6b09e85c2f81d7e@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7cab1b91545e81e4b6b09e85c2f81d7e@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 05:53:57PM -0800, skannan@codeaurora.org wrote: > On 2018-02-24 00:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 04:19:38PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > Some PMUs events can be read from any CPU. So allow the PMU to mark > > > events as such. For these events, we don't need to reject reads or > > > make smp calls to the event's CPU and cause unnecessary wake ups. > > > > > > Good examples of such events would be events from caches shared across > > > all CPUs. > > > > So why would the existing ACTIVE_PKG not work for you? Because clearly > > your example does not cross a package. > > Because based on testing it on hardware, it looks like the two clusters in > an ARM DynamIQ design are not considered part of the same "package". When I > say clusters, I using the more common interpretation of "homogeneous CPUs > running on the same clock"/CPUs in a cpufreq policy and not ARM's new > redefinition of cluster. So, on a SoC with 4 little and 4 big cores, it'll > still trigger a lot of unnecessary smp calls/IPIs that cause unnecessary > wakeups. arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h:#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu) (cpu_topology[cpu].cluster_id) *sigh*... that's just broken...