lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 01/23] perf/x86: Support outputting XMM registers
From
Date


On 4/1/2019 3:18 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:11 AM <kan.liang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Starting from Icelake, XMM registers can be collected in PEBS record.
>> But current code only output the pt_regs.
>>
>> Add a new struct x86_perf_regs for both pt_regs and xmm_regs.
>> XMM registers are 128 bit. To simplify the code, they are handled like
>> two different registers, which means setting two bits in the register
>> bitmap. This also allows only sampling the lower 64bit bits in XMM.
>>
> You are adding this new x86_perf_regs struct but the patch does not
> include how it is allocated.
> I don't see from this patch where x86_perf_regs->xmm_regs is actually allocated.
>

The x86_perf_regs->xmm_regs saves the pointer to PEBS record.
We don't allocate space for it.
The related code can be found at 04/23 "perf/x86/intel: Support adaptive
PEBSv4"

+ if (format_size & PEBS_DATACFG_XMMS) {
+ struct pebs_xmm *xmm = next_record;
+
+ next_record = xmm + 1;
+ perf_regs->xmm_regs = xmm->xmm;
+ }

This patch only include the generic support for x86_perf_regs.

>> The index of XMM registers starts from 32. There are 16 XMM registers.
>> So all reserved space for regs are used. Remove REG_RESERVED.
>>
>> Add PERF_REG_X86_XMM_MAX, which stands for the max number of all x86
>> regs including both GPRs and XMM.
>>
>> XMM is not supported on all platforms. Adding has_xmm_regs to indicate
>> the specific platform. Also add checks in x86_pmu_hw_config() to reject
>> invalid config of regs_user and regs_intr.
>>
>> Add REG_NOSUPPORT for 32bit to exclude unsupported registers.
>>
>> Originally-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
>> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes since V3:
>> - Keep the old names for GPRs. Rename PERF_REG_X86_MAX to
>> PERF_REG_X86_XMM_MAX
>> - Remove unnecessary REG_RESERVED
>> - Add REG_NOSUPPORT for 32bit
>>
>> arch/x86/events/core.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 2 ++
>> arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 5 +++++
>> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
>> index e2b1447192a8..9378c6b2128f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
>> @@ -560,6 +560,16 @@ int x86_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event *event)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + if (event->attr.sample_regs_user & ~PEBS_REGS)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + /*
>> + * Besides the general purpose registers, XMM registers may
>> + * be collected in PEBS on some platforms, e.g. Icelake
>> + */
>> + if ((event->attr.sample_regs_intr & ~PEBS_REGS) &&
>> + (!x86_pmu.has_xmm_regs || !event->attr.precise_ip))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
> Shouldn't you be testing on PEBS_REGS only if the user is asking for
> PEBS sampling?
> That is not because PEBS may not capture a register that the kernel
> could not do it
> without PEBS.

I will add is_sampling_event() check as below.

if (is_sampling_event(event) &&
(event->attr.sample_regs_user & ~PEBS_REGS))
return -EINVAL;
if (is_sampling_event(event) &&
(event->attr.sample_regs_intr & ~PEBS_REGS) &&
(!x86_pmu.has_xmm_regs || !event->attr.precise_ip))
return -EINVAL;

>
>> return x86_setup_perfctr(event);
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
>> index a75955741c50..6428941a5073 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
>> @@ -657,6 +657,8 @@ struct x86_pmu {
>> * Check period value for PERF_EVENT_IOC_PERIOD ioctl.
>> */
>> int (*check_period) (struct perf_event *event, u64 period);
>> +
>> + unsigned int has_xmm_regs : 1; /* support XMM regs */
>> };
> Is this an Intel specific field? If so, then say intel_has_xmm_regs,
> just like amd_nb_constraints above.

I'm not familiar with AMD. I just google it. It looks like AMD also has
XMM registers.

> If not, then define what is is supposed to mean? Because I am sure
> there is another way to detect if
> the CPU support XMM regs, like cpufeatures?

It means that XMM registers can be collected in PEBS record.
How about the name "pebs_has_xmm_regs"?


Thanks,
Kan

>
>>
>> struct x86_perf_task_context {
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h
>> index 8bdf74902293..d9f5bbe44b3c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h
>> @@ -248,6 +248,11 @@ extern void perf_events_lapic_init(void);
>> #define PERF_EFLAGS_VM (1UL << 5)
>>
>> struct pt_regs;
>> +struct x86_perf_regs {
>> + struct pt_regs regs;
>> + u64 *xmm_regs;
>> +};
>> +
>> extern unsigned long perf_instruction_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs);
>> extern unsigned long perf_misc_flags(struct pt_regs *regs);
>> #define perf_misc_flags(regs) perf_misc_flags(regs)
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h
>> index f3329cabce5c..ac67bbea10ca 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h
>> @@ -27,8 +27,29 @@ enum perf_event_x86_regs {
>> PERF_REG_X86_R13,
>> PERF_REG_X86_R14,
>> PERF_REG_X86_R15,
>> -
>> + /* These are the limits for the GPRs. */
>> PERF_REG_X86_32_MAX = PERF_REG_X86_GS + 1,
>> PERF_REG_X86_64_MAX = PERF_REG_X86_R15 + 1,
>> +
>> + /* These all need two bits set because they are 128bit */
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM0 = 32,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM1 = 34,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM2 = 36,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM3 = 38,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM4 = 40,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM5 = 42,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM6 = 44,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM7 = 46,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM8 = 48,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM9 = 50,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM10 = 52,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM11 = 54,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM12 = 56,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM13 = 58,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM14 = 60,
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM15 = 62,
>> +
>> + /* These include both GPRs and XMMX registers */
>> + PERF_REG_X86_XMM_MAX = PERF_REG_X86_XMM15 + 2,
>> };
>> #endif /* _ASM_X86_PERF_REGS_H */
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>> index c06c4c16c6b6..07c30ee17425 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>> @@ -59,18 +59,34 @@ static unsigned int pt_regs_offset[PERF_REG_X86_MAX] = {
>>
>> u64 perf_reg_value(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>> {
>> + struct x86_perf_regs *perf_regs;
>> +
>> + if (idx >= PERF_REG_X86_XMM0 && idx < PERF_REG_X86_XMM_MAX) {
>> + perf_regs = container_of(regs, struct x86_perf_regs, regs);
>> + if (!perf_regs->xmm_regs)
>> + return 0;
>> + return perf_regs->xmm_regs[idx - PERF_REG_X86_XMM0];
>> + }
>> +
>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(idx >= ARRAY_SIZE(pt_regs_offset)))
>> return 0;
>>
>> return regs_get_register(regs, pt_regs_offset[idx]);
>> }
>>
>> -#define REG_RESERVED (~((1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_MAX) - 1ULL))
>> -
>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>> +#define REG_NOSUPPORT ((1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_R8) | \
>> + (1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_R9) | \
>> + (1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_R10) | \
>> + (1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_R11) | \
>> + (1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_R12) | \
>> + (1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_R13) | \
>> + (1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_R14) | \
>> + (1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_R15))
>> +
>> int perf_reg_validate(u64 mask)
>> {
>> - if (!mask || mask & REG_RESERVED)
>> + if (!mask || (mask & REG_NOSUPPORT))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> return 0;
>> @@ -96,10 +112,7 @@ void perf_get_regs_user(struct perf_regs *regs_user,
>>
>> int perf_reg_validate(u64 mask)
>> {
>> - if (!mask || mask & REG_RESERVED)
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> -
>> - if (mask & REG_NOSUPPORT)
>> + if (!mask || (mask & REG_NOSUPPORT))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> return 0;
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-01 21:55    [W:0.069 / U:31.212 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site