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 C3DBDC433F5 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:03:00 +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-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=IEv11Q4CxKZepwNP/eF3nH/mHEvOWjIIPqao8i+ZFu4=; b=ChIa5b7pnkaj8L 9tGx4ED3Jz0IBhSxDiKLA+YAh8k4IIBGf1ssLLPCe2nwJ6TgRkoOJCCYYbRgQJLaI62WhsZXUkbK9 2mtNDFLLibA66qUxDJxVYMKhCUJ7yfD/vOotjuKk7bELUoHxdKCiR4pmhuZcL3+3bMz6lhL2HbV1/ FF/ACA50mtbWdc/O+m8fv+LifOrdLYTp1BgFXpl0SDugcW6SL5uKWSCNHZTZHHgTzjEAq3ewhtoTE oq/nPFjcEKdtMNZ+sWt+k4yaUwPGsOGGfpsiSc0YmZFdUSn6uyRJICQ9HeV0fnrrzvS0qJtRLzl2S Y1W3mTzjOFgobMs0ZJ7A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nj25w-00AXOv-2r; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:01:52 +0000 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nj25s-00AXNP-I7 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:01:49 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1650906108; x=1682442108; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dBjDeKCBG8dDb3+fTvZJG04zxqSAzT9opUo1LLEgCAE=; b=hx+N0OvhB093FUOgzz7xBKnjTWOrejsLEO925tn55uOtYy472CktR0R4 6gu0yrYyL+hs9qAxP/XDAZNuQuHcdpRZueMIlgaywhzcgb3jwdJJA/MnO nkLKhrlt/EtSfZLsvrri0WYH4An6UroNxhCN4rcX7m6mRZBjakZ6Zqlkk IXG28jQb2/VMzUC8KEO89gWvniI0cTOF8kpxv+0DHUoB+nhS22/FhtMuV 7RCMx+yBRhBsX/Q25qAJkfAPq+guRZa+IS3zxE6v4RqqZq3ZuFYwhGLNc SKtgnJB8TrEHuwTe7M/bslEvsMqNGJRSAiYzZqi0eH4lvjkVSqub6O4hk Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10328"; a="265472347" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,289,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="265472347" Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Apr 2022 10:01:44 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,289,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="564169148" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2022 10:01:44 -0700 Received: from [10.209.9.159] (kliang2-MOBL.ccr.corp.intel.com [10.209.9.159]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEF1A5809EB; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:01:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] perf: Add SNOOP_PEER flag to perf mem data struct Content-Language: en-US To: Leo Yan , Andi Kleen Cc: Ali Saidi , Nick.Forrington@arm.com, acme@kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, andrew.kilroy@arm.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, german.gomez@arm.com, james.clark@arm.com, john.garry@huawei.com, jolsa@kernel.org, kjain@linux.ibm.com, lihuafei1@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org References: <20220422212249.22463-1-alisaidi@amazon.com> <20220423063805.GA559531@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> <8e09af67-a416-4ead-b406-6c8b998de344@linux.intel.com> <20220424114302.GB978927@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> From: "Liang, Kan" In-Reply-To: <20220424114302.GB978927@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220425_100148_645996_0C451C97 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.32 ) 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 4/24/2022 7:43 AM, Leo Yan wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 05:53:28AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: >> >>> Except SNOOPX_FWD means a no modified cache snooping, it also means it's >>> a cache conherency from *remote* socket. This is quite different from we >>> define SNOOPX_PEER, which only snoop from peer CPU or clusters. >>> The FWD doesn't have to be *remote*. The definition you quoted is just for the "L3 Miss", which is indeed a remote forward. But we still have cross-core FWD. See Table 19-101. Actually, X86 uses the PERF_MEM_REMOTE_REMOTE + PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_FWD to indicate the remote FWD, not just SNOOPX_FWD. >>> If no objection, I prefer we could keep the new snoop type SNOOPX_PEER, >>> this would be easier for us to distinguish the semantics and support the >>> statistics for SNOOPX_FWD and SNOOPX_PEER separately. >>> >>> I overlooked the flag SNOOPX_FWD, thanks a lot for Kan's reminding. >> >> Yes seems better to keep using a separate flag if they don't exactly match. >> Yes, I agree with Andi. If you still think the existing flag combination doesn't match your requirement, a new separate flag should be introduced. I'm not familiar with ARM. I think I will leave it to you and the maintainer to decide. Thanks, Kan _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel