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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-10 19:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ 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 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC Jan Glauber
2016-11-08 23:50 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-11 10:30 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-17 18:10 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-10 16:54 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-10 19:46 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-11-11 7:37 ` Jan Glauber
2016-11-11 10:39 ` Jan Glauber
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 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX L2C CBC " Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX LMC " Jan Glauber
2016-10-29 11:55 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX OCX TLK " 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).