lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v9 5/7] perf: cavium: Support memory controller PMU counters
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:57:46AM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:54:03AM +0800, Zhangshaokun wrote:
> > On 2017/8/29 21:12, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > Add support for the PMU counters on Cavium SOC memory controllers.
> > >
> > > This patch also adds generic functions to allow supporting more
> > > devices with PMU counters.

> > > +/* generic struct to cover the different pmu types */
> > > +struct cvm_pmu_dev {
> > > + struct pmu pmu;
> > > + const char *pmu_name;
> >
> > It seems that pmu_name is redundant since struct pmu has a name field,
> > Mark has mentioned it in HiSilicon uncore PMU driver, Link:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9861821/
>
> I don't get it. perf_pmu_register() just copies the char* from the
> argument into pmu->name. Somewhere the string must be allocated.
> That's why I have cvm_pmu_dev->pmu_name.

I'm not sure I follow. cvm_pmu_dev->pmu_name is just a char *, so what
does that have to do with allocation?

... unless you mean you want to allocate this in some variant-specific
code prior to passing it to code which calls perf_pmu_register(), and
you just need a place to stash it in the mean time?

> > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h b/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h
> > > index 82b30e6..ca84ac8 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h
> > > @@ -139,6 +139,7 @@ enum cpuhp_state {
> > > CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_QCOM_L3_ONLINE,
> > > CPUHP_AP_WORKQUEUE_ONLINE,
> > > CPUHP_AP_RCUTREE_ONLINE,
> > > + CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_CVM_ONLINE,
> >
> > Alphabetic order?
>
> These don't look alphabetically ordered to me.

Sure, the full list is ordered by dependency.

However, we've generally kept the uncore PMUs together, and within the
group of system PMU CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_* callbacks, we've retained
alphabetical order.

Does this PMU need workqueues and RCU up before its HP callback is
invoked? Or can this be moved into the group of CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_*
above CPUHP_AP_WORKQUEUE_ONLINE and CPUHP_AP_RCUTREE_ONLINE? i.e.
between CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_CCN_ONLINE and CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_L2X0_ONLINE.

THanks,
Mark.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-31 12:33    [W:0.054 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site