[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <948ed187-bfe8-c8f2-83b1-88db7af88c03@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:20:04 -0400
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, jolsa@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/22] perf/x86/intel: Support adaptive PEBSv4
On 3/19/2019 10:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> @@ -933,6 +998,19 @@ pebs_update_state(bool needed_cb, struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, struct pmu *pmu)
>> update = true;
>> }
>>
>> + if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_baseline && add) {
>> + u64 pebs_data_cfg;
>> +
>> + pebs_data_cfg = pebs_update_adaptive_cfg(event);
>> +
>> + /* Update pebs_record_size if new event requires more data. */
>> + if (pebs_data_cfg & ~cpuc->pebs_data_cfg) {
>> + cpuc->pebs_data_cfg |= pebs_data_cfg;
>> + adaptive_pebs_record_size_update();
>> + update = true;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> if (update)
>> pebs_update_threshold(cpuc);
>> }
> Hurmph.. this only grows the PEBS record.
>
Yes, the PEBS record doesn't shrink on the del. Because we have to go
through all the existing pebs events for an accurate config. I think it
doesn't worth it. There is no harmful for a bigger PEBS record, except
little performance impacts. But that's rare case. For most cases, we
usually apply the same pebs config for all pebs events.
>
>> @@ -947,7 +1025,7 @@ void intel_pmu_pebs_add(struct perf_event *event)
>> if (hwc->flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_LARGE_PEBS)
>> cpuc->n_large_pebs++;
>>
>> - pebs_update_state(needed_cb, cpuc, event->ctx->pmu);
>> + pebs_update_state(needed_cb, cpuc, event, true);
>> }
>>
>> void intel_pmu_pebs_enable(struct perf_event *event)
>> @@ -965,6 +1043,14 @@ void intel_pmu_pebs_enable(struct perf_event *event)
>> else if (event->hw.flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_PEBS_ST)
>> cpuc->pebs_enabled |= 1ULL << 63;
>>
>> + if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_baseline) {
>> + hwc->config |= ICL_EVENTSEL_ADAPTIVE;
>> + if (cpuc->pebs_data_cfg != cpuc->active_pebs_data_cfg) {
>> + wrmsrl(MSR_PEBS_DATA_CFG, cpuc->pebs_data_cfg);
>> + cpuc->active_pebs_data_cfg = cpuc->pebs_data_cfg;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * Use auto-reload if possible to save a MSR write in the PMI.
>> * This must be done in pmu::start(), because PERF_EVENT_IOC_PERIOD.
>> @@ -991,7 +1077,12 @@ void intel_pmu_pebs_del(struct perf_event *event)
>> if (hwc->flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_LARGE_PEBS)
>> cpuc->n_large_pebs--;
>>
>> - pebs_update_state(needed_cb, cpuc, event->ctx->pmu);
>> + /* Clear both pebs_data_cfg and pebs_record_size for first PEBS. */
> Weird comment..
>
>> + if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_baseline && !cpuc->n_pebs) {
>> + cpuc->pebs_data_cfg = 0;
>> + cpuc->pebs_record_size = sizeof(struct pebs_basic);
>> + }
>> + pebs_update_state(needed_cb, cpuc, event, false);
> Why do we have to reset record_size? That'll be updated in
> pebs_update_state() on the next add.
>
The record_size should be reset for the first PEBS events.
Right, I can move the reset in pebs_update_state().
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists