From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA0FEC47258 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:31:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:From:References:To:Subject: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=ET7a1rL3L5la3fJXEJOSsd7vmaZFT2aQEKkMvhu5a/4=; b=1KQv4eqMKN41uJ kCXVi3G9bqSe7tPmUvHwXCfjs8JNe0XBW4EM4PSe0I2rhzd4T7efVNy4rCvl3rElQ8y8RbPUluJIt zDR97j1gHjliHpS6g5jr3MLTCdbNw5EoOMUNp0BXzqtabCPP38cqnRBbtm+JMh2zVKluxF5L1gqPb /BspWdI5hbsjsfpVRtc+Ib3saaDgb+3xjDuJaal88ZC/6wXS4YiEkMfs0z0eoaLZ79+gcuJ5Ktruz tZ2OWrmywZeUVHyYusHNeUT1od8+SAHPBigJ+9xWBtCxe7mlPjNwfUzcjtCaC8nMSvMY4afrOertJ NKRheOHzq8toyR4Plqtw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rS9N6-00F9YD-11; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:52 +0000 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rS9N3-00F9Xj-2G for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:51 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 40N4CQg8012977; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:29 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=c3fY0fdNOtVS3dg71XW9+tcghfHsu7IinDH2uN6dRYI=; b=XmsY9em8T1q335xq4B56u4f7ImfheH7WTKLFFHqxU+97e9+9D0dlyNapAR48iDTOdmy6 TQfMagMzdEQy1JQBdHWR3IlxzAMXiJdnQSOTnt9kDO7MNIRTmeEM3BNNK6SPFY5ZfVAx 6MdB9KWCebQ0tdbI83EiVIJOQvv+eDSpV+fY8Dop8cFrJpgBUidfm0oE5YKOp2mNgsIV KwzaVgGOKu/BqJwA2eg7NvK+wnHdBfxJCPvH4vK0GhTgo8iwU5vXI0J12SnYbLjRvqGk neOS3EfqjANd8K7jr7e0uzNDjgDbTsBVEfmoq+f6aBGNq/sfRykCUGxYLAclesoQYNwx 2Q== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3vt5bnjb8w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:29 +0000 Received: from m0360072.ppops.net (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 40N5USi9011993; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:28 GMT Received: from ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5c.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.92]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3vt5bnjb85-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:28 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 40N5JqHo010841; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:27 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.225]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3vrrvynbgh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:27 +0000 Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.105]) by smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 40N5UPYh14746114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:25 GMT Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDC720049; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0979B20040; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.39.89] (unknown [9.171.39.89]) by smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:30:20 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <6ace2f9f-b073-e22b-0dd6-69c52814d49a@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:00:19 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] Clean up perf mem To: "Liang, Kan" , acme@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com, john.g.garry@oracle.com, will@kernel.org, james.clark@arm.com, mike.leach@linaro.org, leo.yan@linaro.org, yuhaixin.yhx@linux.alibaba.com, renyu.zj@linux.alibaba.com, tmricht@linux.ibm.com, ravi.bangoria@amd.com, atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20231213195154.1085945-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com> <8bfadc86-e137-4a9f-a9ce-0bc62464c195@linux.intel.com> <057a1c19-3117-1aec-41d6-4950c599b862@linux.ibm.com> <692e16f9-062c-4b3c-bd66-a16bac68216c@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: kajoljain In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: qRDAdeiGpe7JYugVvI7p3djwvBYyEjfA X-Proofpoint-GUID: o9agsxK2HZei6elcqPqL8Jq2C1rlcthN X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-01-23_02,2024-01-22_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311290000 definitions=main-2401230037 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240122_213049_857308_EC116D14 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 30.64 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 1/16/24 22:07, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > On 2024-01-16 9:05 a.m., kajoljain wrote: >>> For powerpc, the patch 3 introduced a perf_mem_events_power, which >>> doesn't have ldlat. But it only be assigned to the pmu->is_core. I'm not >>> sure if it's the problem. >> Hi Kan, >> Correct there were some small issues with patch 3, I added fix for that. >> > > Thanks Kajol Jain! I will fold your fix into V4. > >>> Also, S390 still uses the default perf_mem_events, which includes ldlat. >>> I'm not sure if S390 supports the ldlat. >> I checked it, I didn't find ldlat parameter defined in arch/s390 >> directory. I think its better to make default ldlat value as false >> in tools/perf/util/mem-events.c file. > > The s390 may not be the only user for the default perf_mem_events[] in > the tools/perf/util/mem-events.c. We probably cannot change the default > value. > We may share the perf_mem_events_power[] between powerpc and s390. (We > did the similar share for arm and arm64.) > > How about the below patch (not tested.) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/s390/util/pmu.c > b/tools/perf/arch/s390/util/pmu.c > index 225d7dc2379c..411034c984bb 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/arch/s390/util/pmu.c > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/s390/util/pmu.c > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ > #include > > #include "../../../util/pmu.h" > +#include "../../powerpc/util/mem-events.h" > > #define S390_PMUPAI_CRYPTO "pai_crypto" > #define S390_PMUPAI_EXT "pai_ext" > @@ -21,5 +22,5 @@ void perf_pmu__arch_init(struct perf_pmu *pmu) > pmu->selectable = true; > > if (pmu->is_core) > - pmu->mem_events = perf_mem_events; > + pmu->mem_events = perf_mem_events_power; > } > > > > However, the original s390 code doesn't include any s390 specific code > for perf_mem. So I thought it uses the default perf_mem_events[]. > Is there something I missed? > > Or does the s390 even support mem events? If not, I may remove the > mem_events from s390. Hi Kan, I don't have s390 system to do testing. But from my end I am fine with the changes. Thanks, Kajol Jain > > Thanks, > Kan _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel