[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100310194344.GD8070@lenovo>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:43:44 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86,perf: Implement minimal P4 PMU driver v14
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 08:29:28PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 10.03.10 21:31:02, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 2
> > arch/x86/include/asm/perf_p4.h | 707 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> If so, it should be perf_event_p4.h.
>
Accepted, thanks!
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 46 +-
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd.c | 2
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c | 15
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c | 612 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p6.c | 2
> > 7 files changed, 1363 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> > Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> > =====================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> > @@ -190,6 +190,8 @@ struct x86_pmu {
> > void (*enable_all)(void);
> > void (*enable)(struct perf_event *);
> > void (*disable)(struct perf_event *);
> > + int (*hw_config)(struct perf_event_attr *attr, struct hw_perf_event *hwc);
> > + int (*schedule_events)(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int n, int *assign);
>
> I don't like this extension since it widened the interface without
> additional use.
>
> (*hw_config) could be instead implemented in (*event_map).
Well, I fear I don't see how exactly. event_map has the event number
without any-kind of attributes, or you mean to extend event_map up that
way to pass attribs there as well?
> (*schedule_events) could be implemented by a special p4 handler for
> (*enable) in struct pmu. Maybe there are other solutions for both
> cases, but it should be possible by adoption of existing functions.
>
Assignment scheme is completely different from those which are in
use for architectural events.
> The current implementation of model specific functions is
> sufficient. We have already the following:
>
> * event initialization: x86_pmu.raw_event(), x86_pmu.event_map()
> * event enable: event->pmu->enable(), x86_pmu.enable()
> * event disable: event->pmu->disable(), x86_pmu.disable()
>
> Maybe I miss something in the list above. The introduction of more
> function pointers should be reduced to a minimum.
>
> If the pmu differs heavily you even could return a different pmu for
> such an event.
>
This would require much more code and will lead to a code duplication
as well.
> -Robert
>
All in one, Robert, I would like to make this code less intrusive into
the former perf sources. But at moment I don't see an easy way for this.
Which means -- I would like to collect comments/complains and so on
to improve it.
> > unsigned eventsel;
> > unsigned perfctr;
> > u64 (*event_map)(int);
> > @@ -415,6 +417,25 @@ set_ext_hw_attr(struct hw_perf_event *hw
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> --
> Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> Operating System Research Center
> email: robert.richter@....com
>
-- Cyrill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists