Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] perf: x86, add SandyBridge support | From | Lin Ming <> | Date | Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:18:36 +0800 |
| |
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 23:09 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 17:39 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:43 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > >> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > >> >>> > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 15:22 +0800, Lin Ming wrote: > >> >>> >> This patch adds basic SandyBridge support, including hardware cache > >> >>> >> events and PEBS events support. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> LLC-* hareware cache events don't work for now, it depends on the > >> >>> >> offcore patches. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > What's the status of those, Stephane reported some problems last I > >> >>> > remember? > >> >>> > > >> >>> I tried the trick I mentioned and it seems to work. > >> >>> > >> >>> Something like below with hwc->extra_alloc. > >> >>> Could probably find a better name for that field. > >> >> > >> >> Stephane, > >> >> > >> >> I'll integrate below changes to the offcore patches, OK? > >> >> > >> > Let me try one more test on this. > >> > I want to show the case the caused the problem in the first place. > >> > > >> > >> There you go: > >> > >> $ task -e offcore_response_0:DMND_DATA_RD:local_dram -e > >> offcore_response_0:DMND_DATA_RD:local_dram noploop 1 > >> > >> Here the two instances of offcore_response are in two different event groups. > >> I instrumented get/put percore constraint routines. get1 is where you do the > >> first allocation, get2 is where you do ref++. > >> > >> The scheduling algorithm will do: > >> - submit 1st group > >> - schedule 1st group > >> - submit 2nd group > >> - schedule 1st + 2nd group > >> > >> Which results in the following trace: > >> > >> [ 109.855713] CPU0 get1 cfg=1301b7 ref=1 > >> [ 109.855717] CPU0 get2 cfg=1301b7 ref=2 > >> [ 109.855718] CPU0 get2 cfg=1301b7 ref=3 <-- this one is bogus > >> [ 109.856606] CPU0 put cfg=1301b7 ref=2 > >> [ 109.856609] CPU0 put cfg=1301b7 ref=1 <- don't free the resource > > > > Do you mean the issue is still there even with your extra_alloc patch > > applied? > > > No, I am showing you what happens without it. > If you try with it, it should work.
Got it. I'll send out a new version with all the fixes.
Thanks.
> > >> > >> [ 109.856616] CPU0 get2 cfg=1301b7 ref=2 > >> [ 109.856619] CPU0 get2 cfg=1301b7 ref=3 > >> [ 109.856622] CPU0 get2 cfg=1301b7 ref=4 > >> [ 110.742151] CPU0 put cfg=1301b7 ref=3 > >> [ 110.742154] CPU0 put cfg=1301b7 ref=2 > >> > >> [ 110.742160] CPU0 get2 cfg=1301b7 ref=3 > >> [ 110.742161] CPU0 get2 cfg=1301b7 ref=4 > >> [ 110.742163] CPU0 get2 cfg=1301b7 ref=5 > >> [ 110.854448] CPU0 put cfg=1301b7 ref=4 > >> [ 110.854450] CPU0 put cfg=1301b7 ref=3 > > > > > >
| |