[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240904123544.GG13550@willie-the-truck>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:35:47 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] perf: arm_spe: Introduce 'lds' capacity
On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 12:37:29PM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:
> On 8/30/2024 2:09 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> @@ -160,6 +162,7 @@ static ssize_t arm_spe_pmu_cap_show(struct device *dev,
> >>>>
> >>>> static struct attribute *arm_spe_pmu_cap_attr[] = {
> >>>> SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(arch_inst, SPE_PMU_CAP_ARCH_INST),
> >>>> + SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(lds, SPE_PMU_CAP_LDS),
> >>>> SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(ernd, SPE_PMU_CAP_ERND),
> >>>> SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(count_size, SPE_PMU_CAP_CNT_SZ),
> >>>> SPE_CAP_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(min_interval, SPE_PMU_CAP_MIN_IVAL),
> >>>
> >>> What will userspace do with this? I don't think you can turn LDS on/off,
> >>> so either you'll get the data source packet or you won't.
> >>
> >> Yes, LDS bit does not work as a switch.
> >>
> >> The tool in the userspace will record the LDS bit into the metadata. During
> >> decoding phase, it reads out the LDS from metadata. Based on it, the perf
> >> tool can know if the data source is supported or not, if yes then decode the
> >> data source packet.
> >
> > Why not just decode a data source packet when you see it? i.e. assume LDS
> > is always set.
>
> The current tool works this way to directly decode a data source packet.
>
> However, as Arm ARM section D17.2.4 "Data Source packet" describes, the loaded
> data source is implementation dependent, the data source payload format also
> is implementation defined.
>
> We are halfway here in using the LDS bit to determine if the data source is
> implemented. However, we lack information on the data source format
> implementation. As a first step, we can use the LDS bit for sanity checking in
> the tool to detect any potential silicon implementation issues. Once we have
> an architectural definition for the data source format, we can extend the tool
> accordingly.
I don't think we shyould expose UAPI from the driver to detect potential
hardware bugs. Let's add it when we know it's useful for something instead.
>
> >> Another point is how to decide the data source packet format. Now we maintain
> >> a CPU list for tracking CPU variants which support data source trace. For long
> >> term, I would like the tool can based on hardware feature (e.g. a ID register
> >> in Arm SPE) to decide the data source format, so far it is absent. This is why
> >> LDS bit + CPU list is a more reliable way. See some discussion [1].
> >
> > Huh. Why would you have a CPU in the list if it _doesn't_ have LDS?
>
> Yeah, this is what we don't expect - we can verify the implementation based on
> LDS bit.
>
> E.g. if users ask data source related questions, we can use LDS bit (saved in
> the perf metadata) to confirm the feature has been implemented in a silicon.
What exactly do you mean by this?
As far as I can tell:
- Data source packets are either present or absent depending on LDS
- You need CPU-specific information to decode them it they are present
So it's neither necessary nor sufficient to expose the LDS bit to
userspace.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists