lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: perf record doesn't work on rtd129x SoC
Date
From
On 2019-12-04 11:20, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2019-12-04 7:28 am, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Hi YanQing,
>> + LAKML + Mark + Will
>> Am 04.12.19 um 05:55 schrieb Wang YanQing:
>>> I use "perf record" to debug performance issue on RTD1296 SOC, it
>>> does't work, but
>>> the "perf stat" is ok!
>> Thanks for the report - which board, branch and (base) tag are you
>> testing against? And are you building perf yourself from kernel
>> sources,
>> or are you using some distro package?
>> I only have Busybox in my initrd on DS418; I have not tested perf.
>>
>>> After some dig in the kernel, I find the reason is no pmu overflow
>>> interrupt, I think
>>> below pmu configuration isn't right for RTD1296:
>>> "
>>> arm_pmu: arm-pmu {
>>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
>>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 48 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> };
>>> "
>>>
>>> We need 4 PMU SPI for RTD1296 (4 cores), and I guess the 48 isn't
>>> right too.
>> Note that above rtd129x.dtsi snippet is not complete. See
>> rtd1296.dtsi:
>> &arm_pmu {
>> interrupt-affinity = <&cpu0>, <&cpu1>, <&cpu2>, <&cpu3>;
>> };
>
> That doesn't help much, since 4 affinities for one SPI is rather
> nonsensical.
>
>> 48 and high/4 match what I see in the latest BSP:
>>
>> https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M4-bsp/blob/master/linux-rtk/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd129x/rtd-1296.dtsi#L116
>>
>>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>> The only difference I see is "arm,cortex-a53-pmu" vs.
>> "arm,armv8-pmuv3".
>> By my reading of arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c the only difference
>> between the two should be the name and an extra cache_map. You could
>> try
>> the other compatible string in your .dts, but I doubt it'll help.
>> Hopefully the Realtek or Arm guys can shed some light.
>
> If the SoC really has all 4 overflow interrupts combined into a
> single SPI line, then sampling just isn't going to be supported -
> it's
> unreasonably difficult to handle overflow when the IRQ may be taken
> on
> the wrong CPU.

Indeed. And I've recently found this exact design blunder on a brand
new
Amlogic SoC, where the per-core interrupts have been OR'd together.
And not just for the PMU! It is the same situation for the GIC, CTI,
and a couple of other things. The only sane interrupts are the timers.

(sound of a PCB hitting the bin...)

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-04 12:38    [W:0.628 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site