From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Williamson Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 5/6] perf/amd/iommu: Enable support for multiple IOMMUs Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:24:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20160222222457.2824f7e0@t450s.home> References: <1455182127-17551-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1455182127-17551-6-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <20160218131853.GU6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <56CAC01F.8090800@amd.com> <20160222140741.GH6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <56CBEA4A.8070001@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56CBEA4A.8070001-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Suravee Suthikulpanit Cc: Peter Zijlstra , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, acme-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, andihartmann-KuiJ5kEpwI6ELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org, mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, bp-Gina5bIWoIWzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:12:42 +0700 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > Hi > > On 02/22/2016 09:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:00:31PM +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > >>> So I really don't have time to review new muck while I'm hunting perf > >>> core fail, but Boris made me look at this. > >>> > >>> This is crazy, if you have multiple IOMMUs then create an event per > >>> IOMMU, do _NOT_ fold them all into a single event. > >> > >> These are system-wide events, which are programmed on every IOMMU the same > >> way. I am not sure what you meant by creating an event per IOMMU. Do you > >> mean I should create internal per-IOMMU struct perf_event for each event? > > > > No, I meant to expose each IOMMU individually to userspace, as a > > separate device. > > > > Is there never a case to profile just one of the IOMMUs ? > > > > I see. That's definitely doable and simpler to implement. > > I was not sure if making users specify the IOMMU instance (e.g. > amd_iommu_0/ , amd_iommu_1/, ....) would be too > tedious. However, this would actually give users better control of the > performance events, which is a good trade-off. I think it is acceptable. > > I'll make the change and send this out in V5. We already expose individual IOMMU hardware units in /sys/class/iommu/, you might consider trying to match the names there for the convenience of the user. Looks like we use ivhd%d for AMD. Thanks, Alex