Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] perf mem: Support mem_lvl_num in c2c command

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>,
	Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
	Nick.Forrington@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
	andrew.kilroy@arm.com, james.clark@arm.com,
	john.garry@huawei.com, jolsa@kernel.org, kjain@linux.ibm.com,
	lihuafei1@huawei.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
	mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	namhyung@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] perf mem: Support mem_lvl_num in c2c command
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:47:46 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YmA5MqWxxLCp1Nff@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220420084823.GE843168@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>

Em Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 04:48:23PM +0800, Leo Yan escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:04:28AM +0100, German Gomez wrote:
> > 
> > On 08/04/2022 20:53, Ali Saidi wrote:
> > > In addition to summarizing data encoded in mem_lvl also support data
> > > encoded in mem_lvl_num.
> > >
> > > Since other architectures don't seem to populate the mem_lvl_num field
> > > here there shouldn't be a change in functionality.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/perf/util/mem-events.c | 11 +++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c b/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> > > index ed0ab838bcc5..e5e405185498 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> > > @@ -485,6 +485,7 @@ int c2c_decode_stats(struct c2c_stats *stats, struct mem_info *mi)
> > >  	u64 daddr  = mi->daddr.addr;
> > >  	u64 op     = data_src->mem_op;
> > >  	u64 lvl    = data_src->mem_lvl;
> > > +	u64 lnum   = data_src->mem_lvl_num;
> > >  	u64 snoop  = data_src->mem_snoop;
> > >  	u64 lock   = data_src->mem_lock;
> > >  	u64 blk    = data_src->mem_blk;
> > > @@ -527,16 +528,18 @@ do {				\
> > >  			if (lvl & P(LVL, UNC)) stats->ld_uncache++;
> > >  			if (lvl & P(LVL, IO))  stats->ld_io++;
> > >  			if (lvl & P(LVL, LFB)) stats->ld_fbhit++;
> > 
> > Just for completion, can we also handle LFB as it seems to be being set
> > in "/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c"? (Sorry I missed this in the v4)
> 
> With fixing LFB issue pointed by German, the change looks good to me:

Waiting for a v6 then, please collect Leo's reviewed-by tag when
submitting it.

- Arnaldo

> Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> 
> It would be appreciate if x86 or PowerPC maintainers could take a look
> for this patch.  Thanks!

> Leo
> 
> > > -			if (lvl & P(LVL, L1 )) stats->ld_l1hit++;
> > > -			if (lvl & P(LVL, L2 )) stats->ld_l2hit++;
> > > -			if (lvl & P(LVL, L3 )) {
> > > +			if (lvl & P(LVL, L1) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L1))
> > > +				stats->ld_l1hit++;
> > > +			if (lvl & P(LVL, L2) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L2))
> > > +				stats->ld_l2hit++;
> > > +			if (lvl & P(LVL, L3) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L3)) {
> > >  				if (snoop & P(SNOOP, HITM))
> > >  					HITM_INC(lcl_hitm);
> > >  				else
> > >  					stats->ld_llchit++;
> > >  			}
> > >  
> > > -			if (lvl & P(LVL, LOC_RAM)) {
> > > +			if (lvl & P(LVL, LOC_RAM) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, RAM)) {
> > >  				stats->lcl_dram++;
> > >  				if (snoop & P(SNOOP, HIT))
> > >  					stats->ld_shared++;

-- 

- Arnaldo