[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241217202919.GG11133@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 21:29:19 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/4] perf/x86/intel: Support PEBS counters snapshotting
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:45:56PM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > Why can't you use something like the below -- that gives you a count
> > value matching the pmc value you put in, as long as it is 'near' the
> > current value.
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> > index 8f218ac0d445..3cf8b4f2b2c1 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> > @@ -154,6 +154,26 @@ u64 x86_perf_event_update(struct perf_event *event)
> > return new_raw_count;
> > }
> >
> > +u64 x86_perf_event_pmc_to_count(struct perf_event *event, u64 pmc)
> > +{
> > + struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> > + int shift = 64 - x86_pmu.cntval_bits;
> > + u64 prev_pmc, prev_count;
> > + u64 delta;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + prev_pmc = local64_read(&hwc->prev_count);
> > + barrier();
> > + prev_count = local64_read(&event->count);
> > + barrier();
> > + } while (prev_pmc != local64_read(&hwc->prev_count));
>
> Is the "while()" to handle PMI? But there should be no PMI, since the
> PMU has been disabled when draining the PEBS buffer.
Perhaps not in your case, but this way the function is more widely
usable.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> index e06ac9a3cdf8..7f0b850f7277 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> @@ -1969,6 +1969,23 @@ static void adaptive_pebs_save_regs(struct
> pt_regs *regs,
>
> #define PEBS_LATENCY_MASK 0xffff
>
> +void intel_perf_event_pmc_to_count(struct perf_event *event, u64 pmc)
> +{
> + struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> + int shift = 64 - x86_pmu.cntval_bits;
> + u64 prev_pmc;
> + u64 delta;
> +
> + prev_pmc = local64_read(&hwc->prev_count);
> +
> + delta = (pmc << shift) - (prev_pmc << shift);
> + delta >>= shift;
> +
> + local64_add(delta, &event->count);
> + local64_sub(delta, &hwc->period_left);
> + local64_set(&hwc->prev_count, pmc);
> +}
This seems very fragile, at least keep the same store order and assert
you're in NMI/PMI context.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists