Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:25:01 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 28/34] perf pmus: Split pmus list into core and other | From | Ravi Bangoria <> |
| |
On 09-Jun-23 11:05 AM, Ian Rogers wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:30 PM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com> wrote: >> >> On 09-Jun-23 10:10 AM, Ian Rogers wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:01 PM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> Hi Ravi, >>> >>>> On 27-May-23 12:52 PM, Ian Rogers wrote: >>>>> Split the pmus list into core and other. This will later allow for >>>>> the core and other pmus to be populated separately. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> tools/perf/util/pmus.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmus.c b/tools/perf/util/pmus.c >>>>> index 58ff7937e9b7..4ef4fecd335f 100644 >>>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/pmus.c >>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/pmus.c >>>>> @@ -12,13 +12,19 @@ >>>>> #include "pmu.h" >>>>> #include "print-events.h" >>>>> >>>>> -static LIST_HEAD(pmus); >>>>> +static LIST_HEAD(core_pmus); >>>>> +static LIST_HEAD(other_pmus); >>>> >>>> AMD ibs_fetch// and ibs_op// PMUs are per SMT-thread and are independent of >>>> core hw pmu. I wonder where does IBS fit. Currently it's part of other_pmus. >>>> So, is it safe to assume that other_pmus are not just uncore pmus? In that >>>> case shall we add a comment here? >>> >>> I'm a fan of comments. The code has landed in perf-tools-next: >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/pmus.c?h=perf-tools-next >>> Do you have any suggestions on wording? I've had limited success >>> adding glossary terms, for example, offcore vs uncore: >>> https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Glossary#Offcore >>> I think offcore is a more interconnect related term, but I'd prefer >>> not to be inventing the definitions. I'd like it if we could be less >>> ambiguous in the code and provide useful information on the wiki, so >>> help appreciated :-) >> >> Does this look good? >> >> /* >> * core_pmus: A PMU belongs to core_pmus if it's name is "cpu" or it's sysfs >> * directory contains "cpus" file. All PMUs belonging to core_pmus >> * must have pmu->is_core=1. If there are more than one PMUs in >> * this list, perf interprets it as a heterogeneous platform. > > > Looks good but a nit here. It is heterogeneous from point-of-view of > PMUs, there are ARM systems where they are heterogenous with big an> little cores but they have a single homogeneous PMU driver. The perf > tool will treat them as homogeneous.
In that case number of entries in core_pmus list would still be 1 right?
Thanks, Ravi
| |