[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211001151535.GA3148492@p14s>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 09:15:35 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
maz@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
james.morse@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com, leo.yan@...aro.org,
mike.leach@...aro.org, will@...nel.org, lcherian@...vell.com,
coresight@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/17] coresight: trbe: Add a helper to calculate the
trace generated
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 09:36:24AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 30/09/2021 18:54, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Hi Suzuki,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > We collect the trace from the TRBE on FILL event from IRQ context
> > > and when via update_buffer(), when the event is stopped. Let us
> >
> > s/"and when via"/"and via"
> >
> > > consolidate how we calculate the trace generated into a helper.
> > >
> > > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
> > > Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>
> > > Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c | 48 ++++++++++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
> > > index 63f7edd5fd1f..063c4505a203 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
> > > @@ -527,6 +527,30 @@ static enum trbe_fault_action trbe_get_fault_act(u64 trbsr)
> > > return TRBE_FAULT_ACT_SPURIOUS;
> > > }
> > > +static unsigned long trbe_get_trace_size(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
> > > + struct trbe_buf *buf,
> > > + bool wrap)
> >
> > Stacking
> >
>
> Ack
>
> > > +{
> > > + u64 write;
> > > + u64 start_off, end_off;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the TRBE has wrapped around the write pointer has
> > > + * wrapped and should be treated as limit.
> > > + */
> > > + if (wrap)
> > > + write = get_trbe_limit_pointer();
> > > + else
> > > + write = get_trbe_write_pointer();
> > > +
> > > + end_off = write - buf->trbe_base;
> >
> > In both arm_trbe_alloc_buffer() and trbe_handle_overflow() the base address is
> > acquired using get_trbe_base_pointer() but here it is referenced directly - any
> > reason for that? It certainly makes reviewing this simple patch quite
> > difficult because I keep wondering if I am missing something subtle...
>
> Very good observation. So far, we always prgrammed the TRBBASER with the
> the VA(ring_buffer[0]). And thus reading the BASER and using the
> buf->trbe_base is all fine.
>
> But going forward, we are going to use different values for the TRBBASER
> to work around erratum. Thus to make the computation of the "offsets"
> within the ring buffer, it is always correct to use this field. I could
> move this to the patch where the work around is introduced, and put in
> a comment there.
That will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks for the review
>
> Suzuki
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists