Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:00:59 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] perf/hx_arm_ni: Support uncore ARM NI-700 PMU | From | Yang Jialong 杨佳龙 <> |
| |
在 2024/1/31 18:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道: > On 31/01/2024 11:07, Yang Jialong 杨佳龙 wrote: >> >> >> 在 2024/1/31 17:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道: >>> On 31/01/2024 10:07, Yang Jialong 杨佳龙 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 在 2024/1/31 15:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道: >>>>> On 31/01/2024 08:08, JiaLong.Yang wrote: >>>>>> This code is based on uncore PMUs arm_smmuv3_pmu and arm-cmn. >>>>>> One ni-700 can have many clock domains. Each of them has only one PMU. >>>>>> Here one PMU corresponds to one 'struct ni_pmu' instance. >>>>>> PMU name will be ni_pmu_N_M, which N means different NI-700s and M means >>>>>> different PMU in one NI-700. If only one NI-700 found in NI-700, name will >>>>>> be ni_pmu_N. >>>>>> Node interface event name will be xxni_N_eventname, such as >>>>>> asni_0_rdreq_any. There are many kinds of type of nodes in one clock >>>>>> domain. Also means that there are many kinds of that in one PMU. So we >>>>>> distinguish them by xxni string. Besides, maybe there are many nodes >>>>>> have same type. So we have number N in event name. >>>>>> By ni_pmu_0_0/asni_0_rdreq_any/, we can pinpoint accurate bus traffic. >>>>>> Example1: perf stat -a -e ni_pmu_0_0/asni_0_rdreq_any/,ni_pmu_0_0/cycles/ >>>>>> EXample2: perf stat -a -e ni_pmu_0_0/asni,id=0,event=0x0/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: JiaLong.Yang <jialong.yang@shingroup.cn> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> v1 --> v2: >>>>>> 1. Submit MAINTANER Documentation/ files seperately. >>>>> >>>>> SEPARATE PATCHES, not patchsets. You have now checkpatch warnings >>>>> because of this... >>>> >>>> ...OK. But the MAINTANER file changing should be given in which one >>>> patches. >>>> I will submit patch v3 after talking and your permission. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2. Delete some useless info printing. >>>>>> 3. Change print from pr_xxx to dev_xxx. >>>>>> 4. Fix more than 75 length log info. >>>>>> 5. Fix dts attribute pccs-id. >>>>>> 6. Fix generic name according to DT specification. >>>>>> 7. Some indentation. >>>>>> 8. Del of_match_ptr macro. >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/perf/Kconfig | 11 + >>>>>> drivers/perf/Makefile | 1 + >>>>>> drivers/perf/hx_arm_ni.c | 1284 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 3 files changed, 1296 insertions(+) >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/perf/hx_arm_ni.c >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/Kconfig b/drivers/perf/Kconfig >>>>>> index ec6e0d9194a1..95ef8b13730f 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/perf/Kconfig >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/perf/Kconfig >>>>>> @@ -241,4 +241,15 @@ config CXL_PMU >>>>>> >>>>>> If unsure say 'm'. >>>>>> >>>>>> +config HX_ARM_NI_PMU >>>>>> + tristate "HX ARM NI-700 PMU" >>>>>> + depends on PPC_HX_C2000 && 64BIT >>>>> >>>>> 1. There is no PPC_HX_C2000. >>>> >>>> I have been used to using this macro. However this macro is not existed >>>> in mainline. >>>> I will replace it with ARM64. And del involved C code if OK. >>>> >>>> 64bit: >>>> __ffs(unsigned long) and __fls(unsigned long) will be wrong in 32bit. I >>>> pass a u64 argument. >>> >>> One thing is where the code is supposed to run, second thing is compile >>> testing. >>> >> >> Now run on my company product, a 64bit PowerPC... >> But I think it's general for 64bit systems. >> >>> Why do you use __ffs, not __ffs64 which takes u64 if you really want >>> only 64bit argument? unsigned long != u64, so your code is not >>> architecture independent. You claim you wrote it on purpose as >>> non-architecture-independent, but then I claim it's a bug. We are >>> supposed to write code which is portable, as much as possible, assuming >>> it does not affect readability. >>> >> >> I write code in v5.18, there are __ffs64() and fls64(). Asymmetric. > > Sorry, that's a no go. > > That's some very, very old kernel. Do not develop on old kernels, but on > mainline. I also suspect that by basing your work on old kernel, you > duplicate a lot of issues already fixed. > >> There are some difference in return val between __ffs() and ffs64(). >> __ffs(0) and ffs64(0) will give different value. > > __ffs64 calls __ffs, so why would results be different? > > Anyway, that's not really excuse. >
OK. Follow mainline.
> >> >> And I'm sure code run in 64bit. So I choose to use __ffs and __fls. >> >> Maybe it could be compatbile with 32bit. But I don't have a environment >> to test this. >>> >>>> struct ni_hw_perf_event will be big than limit. >>>> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct ni_hw_perf_event) > offsetof(struct >>>> hw_perf_event, target)); >>> >>> And why do you need to use any of such code? Please open one of hundreds >>> of other drivers which work correctly on 32 and 64-bit platforms. >>> >> >> Code for 64bit. >> This code is to avoid struct ni_hw_perf_event is too big than struct >> hw_perf_event::target. > > 1. Why would that matter? target is task_struct. It's size does not > matter. Maybe its offset matters, but not size. >
Offset.
> 2. So you claim that on 32-bit system the structure will be bigger than > on 64-bit system?
The structure will exceed the offset in 32bit. Maybe because the latter changed more. OK. Dont care please.
> >> I learn it from arm-cmn.c. > > Are you copying patterns because they are good patterns or just because > you decided to copy?
Maybe this way is not very good for event framework. OK. Not an official way.
> >> ni_hw_perf_event will replace hw_perf_event. >> I will put some useful information in it with less space and good field >> names. >> But I can't exceed a limit. >> >>>> >>>>> 2. Nothing justified dependency on 64bit. Drop or explain. Your previous >>>>> message did not provide real rationale. >>>> >>>> If ARM64, then drop. >>> >>> ... >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>>> + /* Step2: Traverse all clock domains. */ >>>>>> + for (cd_idx = 0; cd_idx < ni->cd_num; cd_idx++) { >>>>>> + cd = cd_arrays[cd_idx]; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + num = ni_child_number(cd); >>>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "The %dth clock domain has %d child nodes:", cd_idx, num); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* Omit pmu node */ >>>>>> + ni_pmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(ni_pmu, ev_src_nodes, num - 1), >>>>>> + GFP_KERNEL); >>>>>> + ni_pmu->ev_src_num = num - 1; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (!ni_pmu) >>>>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + num_idx = 0; >>>>>> + for (nd_idx = 0; nd_idx < num; nd_idx++) { >>>>>> + nd = ni_child_pointer(pbase, cd, nd_idx); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + node.base = nd; >>>>>> + node.node_type = ni_node_node_type(nd); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (unlikely(ni_node_type(nd) == NI_PMU)) >>>>>> + ni_pmu->pmu_node = node; >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + ni_pmu->ev_src_nodes[num_idx++] = node; >>>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, " name: %s id: %d", ni_node_name[node.type], node.id); >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ni_pmu->dev = dev; >>>>>> + ni_pmu->ni = ni; >>>>>> + ni->ni_pmus[cd_idx] = ni_pmu; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>>> + devm_kfree(dev, cd_arrays); >>>>> >>>>> Why? If it is not device-lifetime then allocate with usual way. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No device-lifetime. >>>> Will allocate in stack. >>> >>> I was thinking about kzalloc. But if array is small, stack could be as well. >>> >> >> If I have to return before devm_kfree because of wrong, I will have to use: >> >> goto out; >> >> out: >> kfree(); >> >> But if I use devm_kzalloc, I will not be worried about that. Even if no > > devm* is not for that purpose. devm is for device-managed allocations. > Device does not manage your allocation. > >> device-lifetime. >> Isn't this a good way? > > Then you want cleanup.h and use proper __free().
Good NEW API. It does what I want. Learned more. Thanks.
> > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |