[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d69ff24e-ae65-c900-715f-c951e7795a79@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 08:55:36 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
acme@...nel.org
Cc: suzuki.poulose@....com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] perf: Capture branch privilege information
On 3/10/22 15:51, James Clark wrote:
>
>
> On 09/03/2022 03:36, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Platforms like arm64 could capture privilege level information for all the
>> branch records. Hence this adds a new element in the struct branch_entry to
>> record the privilege level information, which could be requested through a
>> new event.attr.branch_sample_type based flag PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PRIV_SAVE.
>> This flag helps user choose whether privilege information is captured.
>>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
>> ---
>> include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h | 13 ++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>> index d29280adc3c4..0e96e2017f68 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>> @@ -204,6 +204,8 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type_shift {
>>
>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX_SHIFT = 17, /* save low level index of raw branch records */
>>
>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PRIV_SAVE_SHIFT = 18, /* save privillege mode */
>> +
>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX_SHIFT /* non-ABI */
>> };
>>
>> @@ -233,6 +235,8 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type {
>>
>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX = 1U << PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX_SHIFT,
>>
>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PRIV_SAVE = 1U << PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PRIV_SAVE_SHIFT,
>> +
>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX_SHIFT,
>> };
>>
>> @@ -271,6 +275,12 @@ enum {
>> PERF_BR_NEW_MAX,
>> };
>>
>> +enum {
>> + PERF_BR_USER = 0,
>> + PERF_BR_KERNEL = 1,
>> + PERF_BR_HV = 2,
>> +};
>
> 0 should be "PERF_BR_PRIV_UNKNOWN" so userspace knows if it was not enabled
> otherwise it will look like all samples are PERF_BR_USER when actually
> priv type recording was just disabled.
Makes sense.
>
> I think it's not even always possible to go backwards from a sample to
> work out what the event attributes were so this can be interpreted (taking
> all of perf script and every corner case into account).
>
> Starting at 0=UNKNOWN is consistent with the other fields and makes parsing
> it a whole lot easier.
Fair enough, will start the enum with PERF_BR_PRIV_UNKNOWN and expand the
field 'perf_branch_entry.priv' to 3 bits instead, in order to accommodate
any future needs regarding other captured privilege levels.
>
> James
>
>> +
>> #define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \
>> (PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER|\
>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL|\
>> @@ -1386,7 +1396,8 @@ struct perf_branch_entry {
>> cycles:16, /* cycle count to last branch */
>> type:4, /* branch type */
>> new_type:4, /* additional branch type */
>> - reserved:36;
>> + priv:2, /* privilege level */
>> + reserved:34;
>> };
>>
>> union perf_sample_weight {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists