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 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).