lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH V0 2/3] perf/x86/intel/bm.c: Add Intel Branch Monitoring support
Date


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jiri Olsa [mailto:jolsa@redhat.com]
>Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 6:26 AM
>To: Megha Dey <megha.dey@linux.intel.com>
>Cc: x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>doc@vger.kernel.org; tglx@linutronix.de; mingo@redhat.com;
>hpa@zytor.com; andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com;
>kstewart@linuxfoundation.org; Yu, Yu-cheng <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>;
>Brown, Len <len.brown@intel.com>; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org;
>peterz@infradead.org; acme@kernel.org;
>alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com; namhyung@kernel.org;
>vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com; pombredanne@nexb.com;
>me@kylehuey.com; bp@suse.de; Andrejczuk, Grzegorz
><grzegorz.andrejczuk@intel.com>; Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com>;
>corbet@lwn.net; Shankar, Ravi V <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>; Dey, Megha
><megha.dey@intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH V0 2/3] perf/x86/intel/bm.c: Add Intel Branch
>Monitoring support
>
>On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 11:00:05AM -0700, Megha Dey wrote:
>
>SNIP
>
>> +static unsigned int bm_threshold = BM_MAX_THRESHOLD; static
>unsigned
>> +int bm_mispred_evt_cnt;
>> +
>> +/* Branch monitoring counter owners */ static struct perf_event
>> +*bm_counter_owner[2];
>
>SNIP
>
>> + * Find a hardware counter for the target task
>> + */
>> + for (i = 0; i < bm_num_counters; i++) {
>> + if ((bm_counter_owner[i] == NULL) ||
>> + (bm_counter_owner[i]->state ==
>PERF_EVENT_STATE_DEAD)) {
>> + counter_to_use = i;
>> + bm_counter_owner[i] = event;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (counter_to_use == -1)
>> + return -EBUSY;
>
>not sure I understand, your docs says: "There are 2 8-bit counters that each..
>"
>
>so there are 2 counters per CPU? if that's corrent, isn't this check too strict
>then? you could have more events configured running on other CPUs for
>another tasks
>
>given that we do task only events here, should bm_counter_owner be part
>of task, together with the limit..? I'm probably missing something..

Yes you are right. Initially, we had support for 2 events(from one or 2 tasks) to be monitored for the entire system. This indeed seems very limiting. In the next patchset, I will add support for 2 events per task (This is what the hardware can support).
>
>thanks,
>jirka

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-11 01:51    [W:1.199 / U:0.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site