From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
sudeep.holla@arm.com, james.clark@linaro.org, robh@kernel.org,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com,
hejunhao3@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, xuwei5@huawei.com,
wangyushan12@huawei.com, yangyicong@hisilicon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf: arm_pmuv3: Don't use PMCCNTR_EL0 on SMT cores
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 14:32:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMwJ5FpGRmsyhQuZ@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250820084534.28037-3-yangyicong@huawei.com>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:45:34PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
>
> CPU_CYCLES is expected to count the logical CPU (PE) clock. Currently it's
> preferred to use PMCCNTR_EL0 for counting CPU_CYCLES, but it'll count
> processor clock rather than the PE clock (ARM DDI0487 L.b D13.1.3) if
> one of the SMT siblings is not idle on a multi-threaded implementation.
> So don't use it on SMT cores.
>
> Introduce topology_core_has_smt() for knowing the SMT implementation and
> cached it in arm_pmu::has_smt during allocation.
>
> When counting cycles on SMT CPU 2-3 and CPU 3 is idle, without this
> patch we'll get:
> [root@client1 tmp]# perf stat -e cycles -A -C 2-3 -- stress-ng -c 1
> --taskset 2 --timeout 1
> [...]
> Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 2-3':
>
> CPU2 2880457316 cycles
> CPU3 2880459810 cycles
> 1.254688470 seconds time elapsed
>
> With this patch the idle state of CPU3 is observed as expected:
> [root@client1 ~]# perf stat -e cycles -A -C 2-3 -- stress-ng -c 1
> --taskset 2 --timeout 1
> [...]
> Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 2-3':
>
> CPU2 2558580492 cycles
> CPU3 305749 cycles
> 1.113626410 seconds time elapsed
>
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> ---
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 3 +++
> drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c | 10 ++++++++++
> include/linux/arch_topology.h | 11 +++++++++++
> include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> index 5c310e803dd7..137ef55d6973 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> @@ -901,6 +901,9 @@ struct arm_pmu *armpmu_alloc(void)
>
> events = per_cpu_ptr(pmu->hw_events, cpu);
> events->percpu_pmu = pmu;
> +
> + if (!pmu->has_smt && topology_core_has_smt(cpu))
> + pmu->has_smt = true;
Why isn't that just:
pmu->has_smt = topology_core_has_smt(cpu);
?
but then if that's the case, why do we need to stash the result in the
PMU at all?
> }
>
> return pmu;
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
> index 69c5cc8f5606..32b58a0feb33 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
> @@ -981,6 +981,7 @@ static int armv8pmu_get_chain_idx(struct pmu_hw_events *cpuc,
> static bool armv8pmu_can_use_pmccntr(struct pmu_hw_events *cpuc,
> struct perf_event *event)
> {
> + struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu = to_arm_pmu(event->pmu);
> struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> unsigned long evtype = hwc->config_base & ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT;
>
> @@ -1001,6 +1002,15 @@ static bool armv8pmu_can_use_pmccntr(struct pmu_hw_events *cpuc,
> if (has_branch_stack(event))
> return false;
>
> + /*
> + * The PMCCNTR_EL0 increments from the processor clock rather than
> + * the PE clock (ARM DDI0487 L.b D13.1.3) which means it'll continue
> + * counting on a WFI PE if one of its SMT silbing is not idle on a
typo: sibling
> + * multi-threaded implementation. So don't use it on SMT cores.
> + */
> + if (cpu_pmu->has_smt)
> + return false;
> +
> return true;
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> index d72d6e5aa200..daa1af2e8204 100644
> --- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> @@ -89,6 +89,17 @@ void remove_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
> void reset_cpu_topology(void);
> int parse_acpi_topology(void);
> void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate);
> +
> +/*
> + * Architectures like ARM64 don't have reliable architectural way to get SMT
> + * information and depend on the firmware (ACPI/OF) report. Non-SMT core won't
> + * initialize thread_id so we can use this to detect the SMT implementation.
> + */
> +static inline bool topology_core_has_smt(int cpu)
> +{
> + return cpu_topology[cpu].thread_id != -1;
> +}
Sudeep -- is this ok?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-18 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-20 8:45 [PATCH v2 0/2] perf: arm_pmuv3: Don't use PMCCNTR_EL0 on SMT cores Yicong Yang
2025-08-20 8:45 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] perf: arm_pmuv3: Factor out PMCCNTR_EL0 use conditions Yicong Yang
2025-08-20 8:45 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] perf: arm_pmuv3: Don't use PMCCNTR_EL0 on SMT cores Yicong Yang
2025-09-18 13:32 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2025-09-19 8:56 ` Yicong Yang
2025-09-19 9:16 ` Mark Rutland
2025-09-19 10:27 ` Yicong Yang
2025-09-19 11:17 ` Will Deacon
2025-09-19 9:37 ` Sudeep Holla
2025-09-19 11:18 ` Will Deacon
2025-09-08 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] " Yicong Yang
2025-09-18 16:43 ` Will Deacon
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=aMwJ5FpGRmsyhQuZ@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=hejunhao3@huawei.com \
--cc=james.clark@linaro.org \
--cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=wangyushan12@huawei.com \
--cc=xuwei5@huawei.com \
--cc=yangyicong@hisilicon.com \
--cc=yangyicong@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox