Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3]perf/core: extend perf_reg and perf_sample_regs_intr

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 11:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:04:00PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:

> > It's a perrenial request from our hardware PMU folks to be able to see the raw
> > values of the PMU registers.
> > 
> > I think partly it's so that they can verify that perf is doing what they want,
> > and some of it is that they're interested in some of the more obscure info that
> > isn't plumbed out through other perf interfaces.
> > 
> > We've used various internal hacks over the years to keep them happy. This is an
> > attempt to use a somewhat standard mechanism.
> > 
> > It would also be helpful for those of us working on the perf hardware backends,
> > to be able to verify that we're programming things correctly, without resorting
> > to debug printks etc.
> > 
> > Basically we want to sample regs at the time of the perf interrupt, so we
> > though PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR made senes :)
> > 
> > But if you think this is the wrong mechanism within perf, then please let us
> > know.
> > 
> > I know perf's mission is to abstract as much of the arcane hardware details
> > into a generic interface and make PMUs actually useful for normal folks, and we
> > are committed to that, but it would also be useful to be able to get the raw
> > values for a different type of user.
> > 
> > Maddy's patch only exports PMC1-6 and MMCR0/1. I think we also need to export
> > some others, in particular MMCRA has a lot of stuff in it, half of which is not
> > even architected. So that would have to be exported as "POWER8_MMCRA". And then
> > there's the SIAR/SDAR/SIER which contain a bunch of info on sampled
> > instructions that is not currently plumbed out.
> 
> OK, no objections then. But this is useful information and should be
> included in the patch set.

Thanks, yeah definitely needs more explanation in the patch set.

cheers