[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZkylUT0R9lwseF4a@J2N7QTR9R3>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 14:44:49 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V17 3/9] drivers: perf: arm_pmu: Add infrastructure for
branch stack sampling
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 08:16:33AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> In order to support the Branch Record Buffer Extension (BRBE), we need to
> extend the arm_pmu framework with some basic infrastructure for the branch
> stack sampling which arm_pmu drivers can opt-in using a new feature flag
> called 'has_branch_stack'. Subsequent patches will use this to add support
> for BRBE in the PMUv3 driver.
Please, just use ther *exact* wording I asked for last time:
| In order to support the Branch Record Buffer Extension (BRBE), we need to
| extend the arm_pmu framework with some basic infrastructure for branch stack
| sampling which arm_pmu drivers can opt-in to using. Subsequent patches will
| use this to add support for BRBE in the PMUv3 driver.
At this point in the commit message, the 'has_branch_stack' flag doesn't
matter, and dropping the 'to' after 'opt-in' makes this painful to read.
> Branch stack sampling support i.e capturing branch records during execution
> in core perf, rides along with normal HW events being scheduled on the PMU.
> This prepares ARMV8 PMU framework for branch stack support on relevant PMUs
> with required HW implementation.
Please delete this paragraph.
> With BRBE, the hardware records branches into a hardware FIFO, which will
> be sampled by software when perf events overflow. A task may be context-
> switched an arbitrary number of times between overflows, and to avoid
> losing samples we need to save the current records when a task is context-
> switched out. To do these we'll need to use the pmu::sched_task() callback,
> and we'll also need to allocate some per-task storage space via event flag
> PERF_ATTACH_TASK_DATA.
[...]
> /* The events for a given PMU register set. */
> struct pmu_hw_events {
> /*
> @@ -66,6 +78,17 @@ struct pmu_hw_events {
> struct arm_pmu *percpu_pmu;
>
> int irq;
> +
> + struct branch_records *branches;
> +
> + /* Active context for task events */
> + void *branch_context;
> +
> + /* Active events requesting branch records */
> + unsigned int branch_users;
> +
> + /* Active branch sample type filters */
> + unsigned long branch_sample_type;
> };
At this point in the series I understand why we have the 'branches' and
'branch_users' fields, but the 'branch_context' and 'branch_sample_type'
fields haven't been introduced and are not obvious.
What exactly is branch_context, and why is that a 'void *' ?
I can understand if that's a PMU-specific structure to track the active
branch records, but if so I don't understand why 'branch_sample_type'
isn't folded into that.
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists