[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240226151442.000053ad@Huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 15:14:42 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>, <hejunhao3@...wei.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<yangyicong@...ilicon.com>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
<prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>, <fanghao11@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] drivers/perf: hisi_pcie: Check the target filter
properly
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:33:56 +0800
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com> wrote:
> From: Junhao He <hejunhao3@...wei.com>
>
> The PMU can monitor traffic of certain target Root Port or downstream
> target Endpoint. User can specify the target filter by the "port" or
> "bdf" option respectively. The PMU can only monitor the Root Port or
> Endpoint on the same PCIe core so the value of "port" or "bdf" should
> be valid and will be checked by the driver.
>
> Currently at least and only one of "port" and "bdf" option must be set.
> If "port" filter is not set or is set explicitly to zero (default),
> driver will regard the user specifies a "bdf" option since "port" option
> is a bitmask of the target Root Ports and zero is not a valid
> value.
>
> If user not explicitly set "port" or "bdf" filter, the driver uses "bdf"
> default value (zero) to set target filter, but driver will skip the
> check of bdf=0, although it's a valid value (meaning 0000:000:00.0).
> Then the user just gets zero.
>
> Therefore, we need to check if both "port" and "bdf" are invalid, then
> return failure and report warning.
>
> Testing:
> before the patch:
> 0 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux/
> 0 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0/
> 24,124 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=1/
> 0 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,bdf=0/
> 0 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x800/
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,bdf=1/
> 24,132 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,bdf=0x1700/
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x0,bdf=0x0/
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x0,bdf=0x1/
> 24,138 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x0,bdf=0x1700/
> 24,126 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x1,bdf=0x0/
>
> after the patch:
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux/
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0/
> 24,153 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=1/
> 0 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x800/
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,bdf=0/
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,bdf=1/
> 24,117 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,bdf=0x1700/
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x0,bdf=0x0/
> <not supported> hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x0,bdf=0x1/
> 24,120 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x0,bdf=0x1700/
> 24,123 hisi_pcie0_core1/rx_mrd_flux,port=0x1,bdf=0x0/
>
> Signed-off-by: Junhao He <hejunhao3@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
Thanks for explanation on v1. I'm fine with this now.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c
> index 6f39cb82661e..b2dde7559639 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c
> @@ -306,10 +306,10 @@ static bool hisi_pcie_pmu_valid_filter(struct perf_event *event,
> if (hisi_pcie_get_trig_len(event) > HISI_PCIE_TRIG_MAX_VAL)
> return false;
>
> - if (requester_id) {
> - if (!hisi_pcie_pmu_valid_requester_id(pcie_pmu, requester_id))
> - return false;
> - }
> + /* Need to explicitly set filter of "port" or "bdf" */
> + if (!hisi_pcie_get_port(event) &&
> + !hisi_pcie_pmu_valid_requester_id(pcie_pmu, requester_id))
> + return false;
>
> return true;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists