From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: System/uncore PMUs and unit aggregation
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:37:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170320123701.GL17263@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFpQJXXehUbkr7SNTZfYVeADtXTwbH20Ya=Xwkke7LMXbb20=w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 04:38:28PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > We currently have support for three arm64 system PMUs in flight:
> >
> > [Cavium ThunderX] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1477741719.git.jglauber at cavium.com
> > [Hisilicon Hip0x] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1478151727-20250-1-git-send-email-anurup.m at huawei.com
> > [Qualcomm L2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1477687813-11412-1-git-send-email-nleeder at codeaurora.org
> >
> > Each of which have to deal with multiple underlying hardware units in one
> > way or another. Mark and I recently expressed a desire to expose these
> > units to userspace as individual PMU instances, since this can allow:
> >
> > * Fine-grained control of events from userspace, when you want to see
> > individual numbers as opposed to a summed total
> >
> > * Potentially ease migration to new SoC revisions, where the units
> > are laid out slightly differently
> >
> > * Easier handling of cases where the units aren't quite identical
> >
> > however, this received pushback from all of the patch authors, so there's
> > clearly a problem with this approach. I'm hoping we can try to resolve
> > this here.
> >
> > Speaking to Mark earlier today, we came up with the following rough rules
> > for drivers that present multiple hardware units as a single PMU:
> >
> > 1. If the units share some part of the programming interface (e.g. control
> > registers or interrupts), then they must be handled by the same PMU.
> > Otherwise, they should be treated independently as separate PMU
> > instances.
>
> How are we planning to handle multi-node scenario?
> if there are X separate PMUs on single socket, are we going to list 2X PMUs on
> dual socket?
Sure, why not? Retrofitting multi-node support into a PMU driver sounds
pretty messy to me, and I don't see the downside of exposing these as
separate instances (which is what they are).
Will
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-20 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-17 18:17 System/uncore PMUs and unit aggregation Will Deacon
2016-11-18 3:16 ` Leeder, Neil
2017-01-10 18:54 ` Will Deacon
2017-01-11 0:46 ` Leeder, Neil
2016-11-18 8:15 ` Anurup M
2017-01-10 18:56 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-18 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-18 16:25 ` Liang, Kan
2016-11-18 11:10 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-23 17:18 ` Mark Rutland
2017-03-16 11:08 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2017-03-20 12:37 ` Will Deacon [this message]
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=20170320123701.GL17263@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.