From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V1 06/11] arm64/perf: Drive BRBE from perf event states
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:31:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJXQqV3P=T8GXxDY2wReeYnLcBqge139fUUXLtcQJe=6w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e56509a-2772-a333-ccc3-ad49a2028616@arm.com>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:20 AM Anshuman Khandual
<anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/26/22 10:37 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 10:00:48AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> Branch stack sampling rides along the normal perf event and all the branch
> >> records get captured during the PMU interrupt. This just changes perf event
> >> handling on the arm64 platform to accommodate required BRBE operations that
> >> will enable branch stack sampling support.
> >>
> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> >> Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
> >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 6 +++++
> >> drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> index f6a47036b0b4..11c82c8f2eec 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> @@ -864,6 +864,12 @@ static irqreturn_t armv8pmu_handle_irq(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
> >> if (!armpmu_event_set_period(event))
> >> continue;
> >>
> >> + if (has_branch_stack(event)) {
> >> + cpu_pmu->brbe_read(cpuc, event);
> >
> > Is has_branch_stack() guaranteed to be false on arm32? If not, this will
> > be a NULL function ptr.
>
> armpmu_event_init() blocks a perf event from being created with branch
> stack sampling request without CONFIG_ARM_BRBE_PMU option being enabled
> first, which has dependency on CONFIG_ARM64. So has_branch_stack() is
> guaranteed to be false on arm32.
Then the stub functions in patch 3 are also not needed. The fact that
you create dummy functions makes it look like you can't have NULL
function ptrs, but you don't. This is what I mean about the structure
of the series being hard to review.
> static int armpmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> ....
> if (has_branch_stack(event)) {
> /*
> * BRBE support is absent. Select CONFIG_ARM_BRBE_PMU
> * in the config, before branch stack sampling events
> * can be requested.
> */
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_BRBE_PMU)) {
> pr_warn_once("BRBE is disabled, select CONFIG_ARM_BRBE_PMU\n");
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> }
>
>
> config ARM_BRBE_PMU
> tristate "Enable support for Branch Record Buffer Extension (BRBE)"
> depends on ARM64 && ARM_PMU
> default y
> help
> Enable perf support for Branch Record Buffer Extension (BRBE) which
> records all branches taken in an execution path. This supports some
> branch types and privilege based filtering. It captured additional
> relevant information such as cycle count, misprediction and branch
> type, branch privilege level etc.
>
> >
> > To add to my other comments, this patch is where I would add
> > brbe_read(), etc. to arm_pmu.
>
> Because all new arm_pmu helpers get added and get used in the perf driver
> in the same patch, although the actual helper implementation would still
> come by bit later via the driver. This also uses updates to pmu_hw_events
> struct as well, then that patch needs to be folded here as well.
>
> There is no problem as such, kind of bit subjective. I just feel inclined
> to keep the independent infrastructure changes separate making it easy to
> review while also creating a flow.
Everything about kernel development is subjective until it's a
requirement by the maintainer. I'm not here, so it's just advice.
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-27 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-24 4:30 [RFC V1 00/11] arm64/perf: Enable branch stack sampling Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 01/11] perf: Consolidate branch sample filter helpers Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 02/11] arm64/perf: Add register definitions for BRBE Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 14:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-25 5:04 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 03/11] arm64/perf: Update struct arm_pmu " Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-26 16:59 ` Rob Herring
2022-01-28 3:38 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 04/11] arm64/perf: Update struct pmu_hw_events " Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 05/11] arm64/perf: Detect support " Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-26 17:18 ` Rob Herring
2022-01-28 3:27 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 06/11] arm64/perf: Drive BRBE from perf event states Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-26 17:07 ` Rob Herring
2022-01-27 12:20 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-27 14:31 ` Rob Herring [this message]
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 07/11] arm64/perf: Add BRBE driver Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 18:11 ` James Clark
2022-01-24 18:15 ` James Clark
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 08/11] arm64/perf: Enable branch stack sampling Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 18:02 ` James Clark
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 09/11] perf: Add more generic branch types Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 10/11] perf: Expand perf_branch_entry.type Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-25 16:58 ` James Clark
2022-01-28 4:14 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-26 16:47 ` Rob Herring
2022-01-27 10:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-24 4:30 ` [RFC V1 11/11] perf: Capture branch privilege information Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-25 15:39 ` James Clark
2022-02-02 11:11 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-26 17:27 ` James Clark
2022-03-14 6:47 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-01-25 16:25 ` [PATCH 0/1] perf test: Add branch stack sampling tests for ARM64 German Gomez
2022-01-25 16:25 ` [PATCH 1/1] " German Gomez
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='CAL_JsqJXQqV3P=T8GXxDY2wReeYnLcBqge139fUUXLtcQJe=6w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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).