From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K. Poulose)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 03/11] arm-cci: Group writes to counter
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:51:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <568BA043.2020302@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160104190353.GC17127@leverpostej>
On 04/01/16 19:03, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:54:42AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> Add a helper to group the writes to PMU counter, this will be
>> used to delay setting the event period to pmu::pmu_enable()
>>
>> +/* Write a value to a given set of counters */
>> +static void __pmu_write_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask, u32 value)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(i, mask, cci_pmu->num_cntrs)
>> + __pmu_write_counter(cci_pmu, value, i);
>> +}
>
> I don't understand this as-is. Why do all the counters have the same
> value?
The only value we write to the counters is the period. This routine writes
a given value to a set of counters specified by the mask (not to be confused
with the PMU->hw_events->mask). This will help to group the writes to the counters,
especially since preparatory steps to write to a single counter itself is costly.
So, we do all the preparation only once for a batch of counters.
The other option is to use hw_events->prev_count (which should be set before calling
the function) for each counter specified in the mask. I am fine with either of the
two.
>
>> +static void __maybe_unused
>> +pmu_write_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask, u32 value)
>> +{
>> + __pmu_write_counters(cci_pmu, mask, value);
>> +}
>
> Why are these not just one function for now?
Yes, this could be just one function for now, until we introduce the hooks. This was
a written to avoid another refactoring in the later patch.
Thanks
Suzuki
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arm@kernel.org,
punit.agrawal@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/11] arm-cci: Group writes to counter
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:51:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <568BA043.2020302@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160104190353.GC17127@leverpostej>
On 04/01/16 19:03, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:54:42AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> Add a helper to group the writes to PMU counter, this will be
>> used to delay setting the event period to pmu::pmu_enable()
>>
>> +/* Write a value to a given set of counters */
>> +static void __pmu_write_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask, u32 value)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(i, mask, cci_pmu->num_cntrs)
>> + __pmu_write_counter(cci_pmu, value, i);
>> +}
>
> I don't understand this as-is. Why do all the counters have the same
> value?
The only value we write to the counters is the period. This routine writes
a given value to a set of counters specified by the mask (not to be confused
with the PMU->hw_events->mask). This will help to group the writes to the counters,
especially since preparatory steps to write to a single counter itself is costly.
So, we do all the preparation only once for a batch of counters.
The other option is to use hw_events->prev_count (which should be set before calling
the function) for each counter specified in the mask. I am fine with either of the
two.
>
>> +static void __maybe_unused
>> +pmu_write_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask, u32 value)
>> +{
>> + __pmu_write_counters(cci_pmu, mask, value);
>> +}
>
> Why are these not just one function for now?
Yes, this could be just one function for now, until we introduce the hooks. This was
a written to avoid another refactoring in the later patch.
Thanks
Suzuki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-05 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-04 11:54 [PATCH v5 00/11] arm-cci: PMU updates Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 01/11] arm-cci: Define CCI counter period Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 18:27 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-04 18:27 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-05 9:50 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-05 9:50 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 02/11] arm-cci: Refactor pmu_write_counter Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 19:01 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-04 19:01 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 03/11] arm-cci: Group writes to counter Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 19:03 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-04 19:03 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-05 10:51 ` Suzuki K. Poulose [this message]
2016-01-05 10:51 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 10:44 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 10:44 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 10:48 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 10:48 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 04/11] arm-cci: Refactor CCI PMU enable/disable methods Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 05/11] arm-cci PMU: Delay counter writes to pmu_enable Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 19:24 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-04 19:24 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-05 9:59 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-05 9:59 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 10:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 10:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 11:08 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 11:08 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 18:12 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 18:12 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 06/11] arm-cci: Get the status of a counter Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 07/11] arm-cci: Add routines to save/restore all counters Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 10:50 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 10:50 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 10:58 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 10:58 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 08/11] arm-cci: Provide hook for writing to PMU counters Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 10:54 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 10:54 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-11 12:14 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-11 12:14 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 09/11] arm-cci: CCI-500: Work around PMU counter writes Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 10/11] arm-cci500: Rearrange PMU driver for code sharing with CCI-550 PMU Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` [PATCH v5 11/11] arm-cci: CoreLink CCI-550 PMU driver Suzuki K. Poulose
2016-01-04 11:54 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
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=568BA043.2020302@arm.com \
--to=suzuki.poulose@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.