From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 19:46:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161110194659.GD17134@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161110165405.GH4418@leverpostej>
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..a7b4277
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > + * Some notes about the various counters supported by this "uncore" PMU
> > + * and the design:
> > + *
> > + * All counters are 64 bit long.
> > + * There are no overflow interrupts.
> > + * Counters are summarized per node/socket.
> > + * Most devices appear as separate PCI devices per socket with the exception
> > + * of OCX TLK which appears as one PCI device per socket and contains several
> > + * units with counters that are merged.
>
> As a general note, as I commented on the QC L2 PMU driver [1,2], we need
> to figure out if we should be aggregating physical PMUs or not.
>
> Judging by subsequent patches, each unit has individual counters and
> controls, and thus we cannot atomically read/write counters or controls
> across them. As such, I do not think we should aggregate them, and
> should expose them separately to userspace.
I thought each unit was registered as a separate PMU to perf? Or are you
specifically commenting on the OCX TLK? The comment there suggests that
the units cannot be individually enabled/disabled and, without docs, I
trust that's the case.
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 19:46:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161110194659.GD17134@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161110165405.GH4418@leverpostej>
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..a7b4277
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > + * Some notes about the various counters supported by this "uncore" PMU
> > + * and the design:
> > + *
> > + * All counters are 64 bit long.
> > + * There are no overflow interrupts.
> > + * Counters are summarized per node/socket.
> > + * Most devices appear as separate PCI devices per socket with the exception
> > + * of OCX TLK which appears as one PCI device per socket and contains several
> > + * units with counters that are merged.
>
> As a general note, as I commented on the QC L2 PMU driver [1,2], we need
> to figure out if we should be aggregating physical PMUs or not.
>
> Judging by subsequent patches, each unit has individual counters and
> controls, and thus we cannot atomically read/write counters or controls
> across them. As such, I do not think we should aggregate them, and
> should expose them separately to userspace.
I thought each unit was registered as a separate PMU to perf? Or are you
specifically commenting on the OCX TLK? The comment there suggests that
the units cannot be individually enabled/disabled and, without docs, I
trust that's the case.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-10 19:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-29 11:55 [PATCH v4 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-08 23:50 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-08 23:50 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-11 10:30 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-11 10:30 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-17 18:10 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-17 18:10 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-10 16:54 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-10 16:54 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-10 19:46 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-11-10 19:46 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-11 7:37 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-11 7:37 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-11 10:39 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-11 10:39 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-11 11:18 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-11 11:18 ` Mark Rutland
2016-10-29 11:55 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX L2C TAD uncore support Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX L2C CBC " Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX LMC " Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX OCX TLK " Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` Jan Glauber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161110194659.GD17134@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.