[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YE+balbLkG5RL7Lu@krava>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 18:37:46 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/27] perf parse-events: Support hardware events
inside PMU
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:28:12AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On 3/13/2021 3:15 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 03:07:26PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> > > On hybrid platform, some hardware events are only available
> > > on a specific pmu. For example, 'L1-dcache-load-misses' is only
> > > available on 'cpu_core' pmu. And even for the event which can be
> > > available on both pmus, the user also may want to just enable
> > > one event. So now following syntax is supported:
> > >
> > > cpu_core/<hardware event>/
> > > cpu_core/<hardware cache event>/
> > > cpu_core/<pmu event>/
> > >
> > > cpu_atom/<hardware event>/
> > > cpu_atom/<hardware cache event>/
> > > cpu_atom/<pmu event>/
> > >
> > > It limits the event to be enabled only on a specified pmu.
> > >
> > > The patch uses this idea, for example, if we use "cpu_core/LLC-loads/",
> > > in parse_events_add_pmu(), term->config is "LLC-loads".
> >
> > hum, I don't understand how this doest not work even now,
> > I assume both cpu_core and cpu_atom have sysfs device directory
> > with events/ directory right?
> >
>
> Yes, we have cpu_core and cpu_atom directories with events.
>
> root@...-pwrt-002:/sys/devices/cpu_atom/events# ls
> branch-instructions bus-cycles cache-references instructions
> mem-stores topdown-bad-spec topdown-fe-bound
> branch-misses cache-misses cpu-cycles mem-loads
> ref-cycles topdown-be-bound topdown-retiring
>
> root@...-pwrt-002:/sys/devices/cpu_core/events# ls
> branch-instructions cache-misses instructions mem-stores
> topdown-bad-spec topdown-fe-bound topdown-mem-bound
> branch-misses cache-references mem-loads ref-cycles
> topdown-be-bound topdown-fetch-lat topdown-retiring
> bus-cycles cpu-cycles mem-loads-aux slots
> topdown-br-mispredict topdown-heavy-ops
>
> > and whatever is defined in events we allow in parsing syntax..
> >
> > why can't we treat them like 2 separated pmus?
> >
>
> But if without this patch, it reports the error,
>
> root@...-pwrt-002:~# ./perf stat -e cpu_core/cycles/ -a -vv -- sleep 1
> event syntax error: 'cpu_core/cycles/'
> \___ unknown term 'cycles' for pmu 'cpu_core'
yep, because there's special care for 'cycles' unfortunately,
but you should be able to run 'cpu_core/cpu-cycles/' right?
>
> valid terms: event,pc,edge,offcore_rsp,ldlat,inv,umask,frontend,cmask,config,config1,config2,name,period,percore
>
> Initial error:
> event syntax error: 'cpu_core/cycles/'
> \___ unknown term 'cycles' for pmu 'cpu_core'
>
> valid terms: event,pc,edge,offcore_rsp,ldlat,inv,umask,frontend,cmask,config,config1,config2,name,period,percore
> Run 'perf list' for a list of valid events
>
> The 'cycles' is treated as a unknown term, then it errors out.
yep, because it's not in events.. we could add special rule to
treat cycles as cpu-cycles inside pmu definition ;-)
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists