[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57a0687d-d961-8f8f-8b08-818a07388e49@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 20:29:15 +0800
From: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, will@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rdunlap@...radead.org, robin.murphy@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] drivers/perf: add DesignWare PCIe PMU driver
在 2022/9/27 PM6:04, Jonathan Cameron 写道:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:13:29 +0800
> Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>> 在 2022/9/27 AM1:18, Bjorn Helgaas 写道:
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 09:31:34PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
>>>> 在 2022/9/23 PM11:54, Jonathan Cameron 写道:
>>>>>> I found a similar definition in arch/ia64/pci/pci.c .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define PCI_SAL_ADDRESS(seg, bus, devfn, reg) \
>>>>>> (((u64) seg << 24) | (bus << 16) | (devfn << 8) | (reg))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we move it into a common header first?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe. The bus, devfn, reg part is standard bdf, but I don't think
>>>>> the PCI 6.0 spec defined a version with the seg in the upper bits.
>>>>> I'm not sure if we want to adopt that in LInux.
>>>>
>>>> I found lots of code use seg,bus,devfn,reg with format "%04x:%02x:%02x.%x",
>>>> I am not quite familiar with PCIe spec. What do you think about it, Bjorn?
>>>
>>> The PCIe spec defines an address encoding for bus/device/function/reg
>>> for the purposes of ECAM (PCIe r6.0, sec 7.2.2), but as far as I know,
>>> it doesn't define anything similar that includes the segment. The
>>> segment is really outside the scope of PCIe because each segment is a
>>> completely separate PCIe hierarchy.
>>
>> Thank you for your explanation.
>>
>>>
>>> So I probably wouldn't make this a generic definition. But if/when
>>> you print things like this out, please do use the format spec you
>>> mentioned above so it matches the style used elsewhere.
>>>
>>
>> Agree. The print format of bus/device/function/reg is "%04x:%02x:%02x.%x",
>> so I named the PMU as the same format. Then the usage flow would be:
>>
>> - lspci to get the device root port in format seg/bus/device/function/reg.
>> 10:00.0 PCI bridge: Device 1ded:8000 (rev 01)
>> - select its PMU name pcie_bdf_100000.
>> - monitor with perf:
>> perf stat -a -e pcie_bdf_100000/Rx_PCIe_TLP_Data_Payload/
>
> I think you probably want something in there to indicate it's an RP
> and the bdf part may be redundant...
Yes, I realized that the prefix `pcie_bdf` is not appropriate. Let's discuss
with Robin in his thread.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Shuai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists