Message-ID: <55DFC0D2858AF90E+cefbbefe-9b10-4ae4-9bb8-af6eb6916f6a@shingroup.cn>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:00:59 +0800
From: Yang Jialong 杨佳龙 <jialong.yang@...ngroup.cn>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: shenghui.qu@...ngroup.cn, ke.zhao@...ngroup.cn, zhijie.ren@...ngroup.cn,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/hx_arm_ni: Support uncore ARM NI-700 PMU



在 2024/1/31 18:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
> On 31/01/2024 11:07, Yang Jialong 杨佳龙 wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2024/1/31 17:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
>>> On 31/01/2024 10:07, Yang Jialong 杨佳龙 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 2024/1/31 15:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
>>>>> On 31/01/2024 08:08, JiaLong.Yang wrote:
>>>>>> This code is based on uncore PMUs arm_smmuv3_pmu and arm-cmn.
>>>>>> One ni-700 can have many clock domains. Each of them has only one PMU.
>>>>>> Here one PMU corresponds to one 'struct ni_pmu' instance.
>>>>>> PMU name will be ni_pmu_N_M, which N means different NI-700s and M means
>>>>>> different PMU in one NI-700. If only one NI-700 found in NI-700, name will
>>>>>> be ni_pmu_N.
>>>>>> Node interface event name will be xxni_N_eventname, such as
>>>>>> asni_0_rdreq_any. There are many kinds of type of nodes in one clock
>>>>>> domain. Also means that there are many kinds of that in one PMU. So we
>>>>>> distinguish them by xxni string. Besides, maybe there are many nodes
>>>>>> have same type. So we have number N in event name.
>>>>>> By ni_pmu_0_0/asni_0_rdreq_any/, we can pinpoint accurate bus traffic.
>>>>>> Example1: perf stat -a -e ni_pmu_0_0/asni_0_rdreq_any/,ni_pmu_0_0/cycles/
>>>>>> EXample2: perf stat -a -e ni_pmu_0_0/asni,id=0,event=0x0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: JiaLong.Yang <jialong.yang@...ngroup.cn>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v1 --> v2:
>>>>>> 1. Submit MAINTANER Documentation/ files seperately.
>>>>>
>>>>> SEPARATE PATCHES, not patchsets. You have now checkpatch warnings
>>>>> because of this...
>>>>
>>>> ...OK. But the MAINTANER file changing should be given in which one
>>>> patches.
>>>> I will submit patch v3 after talking and your permission.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Delete some useless info printing.
>>>>>> 3. Change print from pr_xxx to dev_xxx.
>>>>>> 4. Fix more than 75 length log info.
>>>>>> 5. Fix dts attribute pccs-id.
>>>>>> 6. Fix generic name according to DT specification.
>>>>>> 7. Some indentation.
>>>>>> 8. Del of_match_ptr macro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     drivers/perf/Kconfig     |   11 +
>>>>>>     drivers/perf/Makefile    |    1 +
>>>>>>     drivers/perf/hx_arm_ni.c | 1284 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>     3 files changed, 1296 insertions(+)
>>>>>>     create mode 100644 drivers/perf/hx_arm_ni.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/Kconfig b/drivers/perf/Kconfig
>>>>>> index ec6e0d9194a1..95ef8b13730f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/perf/Kconfig
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/perf/Kconfig
>>>>>> @@ -241,4 +241,15 @@ config CXL_PMU
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>     	  If unsure say 'm'.
>>>>>>     
>>>>>> +config HX_ARM_NI_PMU
>>>>>> +       tristate "HX ARM NI-700 PMU"
>>>>>> +       depends on PPC_HX_C2000 && 64BIT
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. There is no PPC_HX_C2000.
>>>>
>>>> I have been used to using this macro. However this macro is not existed
>>>> in mainline.
>>>> I will replace it with ARM64. And del involved C code if OK.
>>>>
>>>> 64bit:
>>>> __ffs(unsigned long) and __fls(unsigned long) will be wrong in 32bit. I
>>>> pass a u64 argument.
>>>
>>> One thing is where the code is supposed to run, second thing is compile
>>> testing.
>>>
>>
>> Now run on my company product, a 64bit PowerPC...
>> But I think it's general for 64bit systems.
>>
>>> Why do you use __ffs, not __ffs64 which takes u64 if you really want
>>> only 64bit argument? unsigned long != u64, so your code is not
>>> architecture independent. You claim you wrote it on purpose as
>>> non-architecture-independent, but then I claim it's a bug. We are
>>> supposed to write code which is portable, as much as possible, assuming
>>> it does not affect readability.
>>>
>>
>> I write code in v5.18, there are __ffs64() and fls64(). Asymmetric.
> 
> Sorry, that's a no go.
> 
> That's some very, very old kernel. Do not develop on old kernels, but on
> mainline. I also suspect that by basing your work on old kernel, you
> duplicate a lot of issues already fixed.
> 
>> There are some difference in return val between __ffs() and ffs64().
>> __ffs(0) and ffs64(0) will give different value.
> 
> __ffs64 calls __ffs, so why would results be different?
> 
> Anyway, that's not really excuse.
> 

OK. Follow mainline.

> 
>>
>> And I'm sure code run in 64bit. So I choose to use __ffs and __fls.
>>
>> Maybe it could be compatbile with 32bit. But I don't have a environment
>> to test this.
>>>
>>>> struct ni_hw_perf_event will be big than limit.
>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct ni_hw_perf_event) > offsetof(struct
>>>> hw_perf_event, target));
>>>
>>> And why do you need to use any of such code? Please open one of hundreds
>>> of other drivers which work correctly on 32 and 64-bit platforms.
>>>
>>
>> Code for 64bit.
>> This code is to avoid struct ni_hw_perf_event is too big than struct
>> hw_perf_event::target.
> 
> 1. Why would that matter? target is task_struct. It's size does not
> matter. Maybe its offset matters, but not size.
> 

Offset.

> 2. So you claim that on 32-bit system the structure will be bigger than
> on 64-bit system?

The structure will exceed the offset in 32bit. Maybe because the latter 
changed more.
OK. Dont care please.

> 
>> I learn it from arm-cmn.c.
> 
> Are you copying patterns because they are good patterns or just because
> you decided to copy?

Maybe this way is not very good for event framework.
OK. Not an official way.

> 
>> ni_hw_perf_event will replace hw_perf_event.
>> I will put some useful information in it with less space and good field
>> names.
>> But I can't exceed a limit.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Nothing justified dependency on 64bit. Drop or explain. Your previous
>>>>> message did not provide real rationale.
>>>>
>>>> If ARM64, then drop.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> +	/* Step2: Traverse all clock domains. */
>>>>>> +	for (cd_idx = 0; cd_idx < ni->cd_num; cd_idx++) {
>>>>>> +		cd = cd_arrays[cd_idx];
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		num = ni_child_number(cd);
>>>>>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "The %dth clock domain has %d child nodes:", cd_idx, num);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		/* Omit pmu node */
>>>>>> +		ni_pmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(ni_pmu, ev_src_nodes, num - 1),
>>>>>> +				      GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> +		ni_pmu->ev_src_num = num - 1;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		if (!ni_pmu)
>>>>>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		num_idx = 0;
>>>>>> +		for (nd_idx = 0; nd_idx < num; nd_idx++) {
>>>>>> +			nd = ni_child_pointer(pbase, cd, nd_idx);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +			node.base = nd;
>>>>>> +			node.node_type = ni_node_node_type(nd);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +			if (unlikely(ni_node_type(nd) == NI_PMU))
>>>>>> +				ni_pmu->pmu_node = node;
>>>>>> +			else
>>>>>> +				ni_pmu->ev_src_nodes[num_idx++] = node;
>>>>>> +			dev_dbg(dev, "  name: %s   id: %d", ni_node_name[node.type], node.id);
>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		ni_pmu->dev = dev;
>>>>>> +		ni_pmu->ni = ni;
>>>>>> +		ni->ni_pmus[cd_idx] = ni_pmu;
>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	devm_kfree(dev, cd_arrays);
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? If it is not device-lifetime then allocate with usual way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No device-lifetime.
>>>> Will allocate in stack.
>>>
>>> I was thinking about kzalloc. But if array is small, stack could be as well.
>>>
>>
>> If I have to return before devm_kfree because of wrong, I will have to use:
>>
>> goto out;
>>
>> out:
>> kfree();
>>
>> But if I use devm_kzalloc, I will not be worried about that. Even if no
> 
> devm* is not for that purpose. devm is for device-managed allocations.
> Device does not manage your allocation.
> 
>> device-lifetime.
>> Isn't this a good way?
> 
> Then you want cleanup.h and use proper __free().

Good NEW API. It does what I want.
Learned more. Thanks.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists