[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKvgHfNdi7U/sEVg@krava>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 19:19:25 +0200
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 v1 3/5] perf tools: Check if mem_events is supported for
hybrid
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:00:38PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> Check if the mem_events ('mem-loads' and 'mem-stores') exist
> in the sysfs path.
>
> For Alderlake, the hybrid cpu pmu are "cpu_core" and "cpu_atom".
> Check the existing of following paths:
> /sys/devices/cpu_atom/events/mem-loads
> /sys/devices/cpu_atom/events/mem-stores
> /sys/devices/cpu_core/events/mem-loads
> /sys/devices/cpu_core/events/mem-stores
>
> If the patch exists, the mem_event is supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/mem-events.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c b/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> index c736eaded06c..e8f6e745eaf0 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> @@ -12,14 +12,16 @@
> #include "mem-events.h"
> #include "debug.h"
> #include "symbol.h"
> +#include "pmu.h"
> +#include "pmu-hybrid.h"
>
> unsigned int perf_mem_events__loads_ldlat = 30;
>
> #define E(t, n, s) { .tag = t, .name = n, .sysfs_name = s }
>
> static struct perf_mem_event perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX] = {
> - E("ldlat-loads", "cpu/mem-loads,ldlat=%u/P", "cpu/events/mem-loads"),
> - E("ldlat-stores", "cpu/mem-stores/P", "cpu/events/mem-stores"),
> + E("ldlat-loads", "%s/mem-loads,ldlat=%u/P", "%s/events/mem-loads"),
> + E("ldlat-stores", "%s/mem-stores/P", "%s/events/mem-stores"),
> E(NULL, NULL, NULL),
so this was generic place, now it's x86 specific, I wonder we should
move it under arch/x86 to avoid confusion
> };
> #undef E
> @@ -100,6 +102,18 @@ int perf_mem_events__parse(const char *str)
> return -1;
> }
>
> +static bool perf_mem_events__supported(const char *mnt, char *sysfs_name)
> +{
> + char path[PATH_MAX];
> + struct stat st;
> +
> + scnprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/devices/%s", mnt, sysfs_name);
> + if (!stat(path, &st))
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
could be just 'return !stat(path, &st);' right?
> +}
> +
> int perf_mem_events__init(void)
> {
> const char *mnt = sysfs__mount();
> @@ -110,9 +124,10 @@ int perf_mem_events__init(void)
> return -ENOENT;
>
> for (j = 0; j < PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX; j++) {
> - char path[PATH_MAX];
> struct perf_mem_event *e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j);
> - struct stat st;
> + struct perf_pmu *pmu;
> + char sysfs_name[100];
> + int unsupported = 0;
>
> /*
> * If the event entry isn't valid, skip initialization
> @@ -121,11 +136,23 @@ int perf_mem_events__init(void)
> if (!e->tag)
> continue;
>
> - scnprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/devices/%s",
> - mnt, e->sysfs_name);
> + if (!perf_pmu__has_hybrid()) {
> + scnprintf(sysfs_name, sizeof(sysfs_name),
> + e->sysfs_name, "cpu");
> + e->supported = perf_mem_events__supported(mnt, sysfs_name);
> + } else {
> + perf_pmu__for_each_hybrid_pmu(pmu) {
> + scnprintf(sysfs_name, sizeof(sysfs_name),
> + e->sysfs_name, pmu->name);
> + if (!perf_mem_events__supported(mnt, sysfs_name))
> + unsupported++;
> + }
> +
> + e->supported = (unsupported == 0) ? true : false;
could you just do in the above loop:
e->supported |= perf_mem_events__supported(mnt, sysfs_name);
jirka
> + }
>
> - if (!stat(path, &st))
> - e->supported = found = true;
> + if (e->supported)
> + found = true;
> }
>
> return found ? 0 : -ENOENT;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists