All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
	peterz@infradead.org,  mingo@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com,
	eranian@google.com,  ak@linux.intel.com, yunying.sun@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf/x86/uncore: Save the unit control address of all units
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:08:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b4fefa29a1bbfccdadc44784453265f84a1904d5.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eb5d91d1-2898-45e0-a2d3-aa5c66155911@linux.intel.com>

On Wed, 2024-06-12 at 10:49 -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> On 2024-06-10 6:40 p.m., Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 13:16 -0700, kan.liang@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > The unit control address of some CXL units may be wrongly calculated
> > > under some configuration on a EMR machine.
> > > 
> > > The current implementation only saves the unit control address of the
> > > units from the first die, and the first unit of the rest of dies. Perf
> > > assumed that the units from the other dies have the same offset as the
> > > first die. So the unit control address of the rest of the units can be
> > > calculated. However, the assumption is wrong, especially for the CXL
> > > units.
> > > 
> > > Introduce an RB tree for each uncore type to save the unit control
> > > address and ID information for all the units.
> > > 
> > > Compared with the current implementation, more space is required to save
> > > the information of all units. The extra size should be acceptable.
> > > For example, on EMR, there are 221 units at most. For a 2-socket machine,
> > > the extra space is ~6KB at most.
> > > 
> > > Tested-by: Yunying Sun <yunying.sun@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.h | 10 +++
> > >  2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> > > index 9a698a92962a..ce520e69a3c1 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> > > @@ -93,6 +93,8 @@ add_uncore_discovery_type(struct uncore_unit_discovery *unit)
> > >  	if (!type->box_ctrl_die)
> > >  		goto free_type;
> > >  
> > > +	type->units = RB_ROOT;
> > > +
> > >  	type->access_type = unit->access_type;
> > >  	num_discovered_types[type->access_type]++;
> > >  	type->type = unit->box_type;
> > > @@ -120,10 +122,59 @@ get_uncore_discovery_type(struct uncore_unit_discovery *unit)
> > >  	return add_uncore_discovery_type(unit);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static inline bool unit_less(struct rb_node *a, const struct rb_node *b)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct intel_uncore_discovery_unit *a_node, *b_node;
> > > +
> > > +	a_node = rb_entry(a, struct intel_uncore_discovery_unit, node);
> > > +	b_node = rb_entry(b, struct intel_uncore_discovery_unit, node);
> > > +
> > > +	if (a_node->pmu_idx < b_node->pmu_idx)
> > > +		return true;
> > > +	if (a_node->pmu_idx > b_node->pmu_idx)
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	if (a_node->die < b_node->die)
> > > +		return true;
> > > +	if (a_node->die > b_node->die)
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > 
> > Will it be better if the rb_node is sorted by id instead
> > of pmu_idx+die?
> 
> The id and pmu_idx+die can all be used as a key to search the RB tree in
> different places.
> 
> The id is the physical ID of a unit. The search via id is invoked when
> adding a new unit. Perf needs to make sure that the same PMU idx
> (logical id) is assigned to the unit with the same physical ID. Because
> the units with the same physical ID in different dies share the same PMU.
> 
> The pmu_idx+die key is used when setting the cpumask. Please see
> intel_uncore_find_discovery_unit_id() in the patch 2. Perf wants to
> understand on which dies the given PMU is available.
> 
> Since different keys can be used to search the RB tree, I think one of
> them has to traverse the whole tree. At the stage of adding a new unit,
> the tree is not complete yet. It minimizes the impact of the O(N)
> search. So I choose the pmu_idx+die rather than id.
> 
> Also, the driver only does once to build the tree and set the cpumask at
> driver load time. I think the O(N) should be acceptable here.
> 

Thanks for explaining.  I think you saying you are looking up pmu in the tree with id
once during driver load time but needs to look up the tree by die and pmu_idx
more frequently, hence the choice for index.

May be worth mentioning that in a comment.

Tim

> Thanks,
> Kan
> 
> > 
> > Then it will be faster for uncore_find_unit() to run in
> > O(log(N)) instead of O(N).  Right now it looks like we
> > are traversing the whole tree to find the entry with the
> > id.
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline struct intel_uncore_discovery_unit *
> > > +uncore_find_unit(struct rb_root *root, unsigned int id)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct intel_uncore_discovery_unit *unit;
> > > +	struct rb_node *node;
> > > +
> > > +	for (node = rb_first(root); node; node = rb_next(node)) {
> > > +		unit = rb_entry(node, struct intel_uncore_discovery_unit, node);
> > > +		if (unit->id == id)
> > > +			return unit;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	return NULL;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > 


  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-12 17:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-10 20:16 [PATCH 0/8] Support HBM and CXL PMON uncore counters kan.liang
2024-06-10 20:16 ` [PATCH 1/8] perf/x86/uncore: Save the unit control address of all units kan.liang
2024-06-10 22:40   ` Tim Chen
2024-06-12 14:49     ` Liang, Kan
2024-06-12 17:08       ` Tim Chen [this message]
2024-06-12 17:33       ` Tim Chen
2024-06-12 19:25         ` Liang, Kan
2024-06-10 20:16 ` [PATCH 2/8] perf/x86/uncore: Support per PMU cpumask kan.liang
2024-06-10 20:16 ` [PATCH 3/8] perf/x86/uncore: Retrieve the unit ID from the unit control RB tree kan.liang
2024-06-10 20:16 ` [PATCH 4/8] perf/x86/uncore: Apply the unit control RB tree to MMIO uncore units kan.liang
2024-06-10 20:16 ` [PATCH 5/8] perf/x86/uncore: Apply the unit control RB tree to MSR " kan.liang
2024-06-10 20:16 ` [PATCH 6/8] perf/x86/uncore: Apply the unit control RB tree to PCI " kan.liang
2024-06-10 20:16 ` [PATCH 7/8] perf/x86/uncore: Cleanup unused unit structure kan.liang
2024-06-10 20:16 ` [PATCH 8/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Support HBM and CXL PMON counters kan.liang

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=b4fefa29a1bbfccdadc44784453265f84a1904d5.camel@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=yunying.sun@intel.com \
    /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.