[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANLsYkx6o9xgxTh4s-o7tVxKKLu_SQc5CLtoHzHK=8WtNK4dbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:46:32 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Coresight ML <coresight@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/17] perf tools: Configure timestsamp generation in
CPU-wide mode
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 03:41, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 24/05/2019 18:34, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > When operating in CPU-wide mode tracers need to generate timestamps in
> > order to correlate the code being traced on one CPU with what is executed
> > on other CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> > index 3912f0bf04ed..be1e4f20affa 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> > @@ -99,6 +99,54 @@ static int cs_etm_set_context_id(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > +static int cs_etm_set_timestamp(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> > + struct perf_evsel *evsel, int cpu)
> > +{
> > + struct cs_etm_recording *ptr;
> > + struct perf_pmu *cs_etm_pmu;
> > + char path[PATH_MAX];
> > + int err = -EINVAL;
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + ptr = container_of(itr, struct cs_etm_recording, itr);
> > + cs_etm_pmu = ptr->cs_etm_pmu;
> > +
> > + if (!cs_etm_is_etmv4(itr, cpu))
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + /* Get a handle on TRCIRD0 */
> > + snprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "cpu%d/%s",
> > + cpu, metadata_etmv4_ro[CS_ETMV4_TRCIDR0]);
> > + err = perf_pmu__scan_file(cs_etm_pmu, path, "%x", &val);
> > +
> > + /* There was a problem reading the file, bailing out */
> > + if (err != 1) {
> > + pr_err("%s: can't read file %s\n",
> > + CORESIGHT_ETM_PMU_NAME, path);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * TRCIDR0.TSSIZE, bit [28-24], indicates whether global timestamping
> > + * is supported:
> > + * 0b00000 Global timestamping is not implemented
> > + * 0b00110 Implementation supports a maximum timestamp of 48bits.
> > + * 0b01000 Implementation supports a maximum timestamp of 64bits.
> > + */
> > + val &= GENMASK(28, 24);
> > + if (!val) {
> > + err = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* All good, let the kernel know */
> > + evsel->attr.config |= (1 << ETM_OPT_TS);
> > + err = 0;
> > +
> > +out:
> > + return err;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int cs_etm_set_option(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> > struct perf_evsel *evsel, u32 option)
> > {
> > @@ -118,6 +166,11 @@ static int cs_etm_set_option(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> > if (err)
> > goto out;
> > break;
> > + case ETM_OPT_TS:
> > + err = cs_etm_set_timestamp(itr, evsel, i);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto out;
> > + break;
> > default:
> > goto out;
> > }
> > @@ -343,6 +396,10 @@ static int cs_etm_recording_options(struct auxtrace_record *itr,
> > err = cs_etm_set_option(itr, cs_etm_evsel, ETM_OPT_CTXTID);
> > if (err)
> > goto out;
> > +
> > + err = cs_etm_set_option(itr, cs_etm_evsel, ETM_OPT_TS);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto out;
>
> nit: Could we not do this in one shot, say :
>
> cs_etm_set_option(itr, cs_etm_evsel, ETM_OPT_TS | ETM_OPT_CTXTID) ?
>
> rather than iterating over the per-CPU events twice ? The cs_etm_set_option()
> could simply replace the switch() to :
>
> if (option & ETM_OPT_1)
> do_something_for_1()
> if (option & ETM_OPT_2)
> do_something_for_2();
> if (option & ~(ETM_OPT_1 | ETM_OPT_2 |...))
> /* do unsupported option */
>
Yes, that is a good optimization.
Arnaldo, do you prefer a new set or another patch on top of this one?
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Cheers
> Suzuki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists