[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130813143517.GT19750@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:35:17 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...radead.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
eranian@...gle.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf, x86: Report TSX transaction abort cost as
weight
> How about something like the below instead? I didn't copy the !fll test
> because I couldn't find why that was. Section 18.10.5.1 (Aug 2012)
!fll is so that if a memory weight is requested we don't overwrite it.
> u64 status, dla, dse, lat;
> };
>
> -/*
> - * Same as pebs_record_nhm, with two additional fields.
> - */
> struct pebs_record_hsw {
> - struct pebs_record_nhm nhm;
> - /*
> - * Real IP of the event. In the Intel documentation this
> - * is called eventingrip.
> - */
> - u64 real_ip;
> - /*
> - * TSX tuning information field: abort cycles and abort flags.
> - */
> - u64 tsx_tuning;
> + u64 flags, ip;
> + u64 ax, bx, cx, dx;
> + u64 si, di, bp, sp;
> + u64 r8, r9, r10, r11;
> + u64 r12, r13, r14, r15;
> + u64 status, dla, dse, lat;
Seems like an unrelated change.
> + u64 real_ip; /* the actual eventing ip */
> + u64 tsx_tuning; /* TSX abort cycles and flags */
> };
>
> void init_debug_store_on_cpu(int cpu)
> @@ -759,16 +754,41 @@ static int intel_pmu_pebs_fixup_ip(struct pt_regs *regs)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +union hsw_tsx_tuning {
> + struct {
> + u64 cycles_last_block : 32,
> + hle_abort : 1,
> + rtm_abort : 1,
> + ins_abort : 1,
> + non_ins_abort : 1,
> + retry : 1,
> + mem_data_conflict : 1,
> + capacity : 1;
I think you used an old SDM for this, there were some changes in the
latest.
This would break my next patch which copies the abort bits into
a new field (well it would need an union at least)
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/ak/linux-misc.git/commit/?h=hsw/pmu7&id=a88a029a6b3cb95148452584c93cbb4004f77f28
Other than that it seems ok and would likely generate the same
code as mine. I prefer mine as it's simpler (I don't think there
is anything in the kernel that needs to look at the individual bits,
they should be just reported together)
-Andi
--
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