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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04462C433F5 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 10:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232218AbiFAKZT (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2022 06:25:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56838 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1352057AbiFAKZN (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2022 06:25:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C2F5F266 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 03:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id y189so1549906pfy.10 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 03:25:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DlxLGMBD2rycrdizEoUgUGGKpKnTn88LsuKtd1elSBw=; b=IfmRzoxe0DV+Wou8Wfa3BPaoSuV4IAqkwM1FX7dDImx76yCiNL6EUZdXOQBqKEqsd5 PwQp/1TKcU+tPb78/erhcqCch1d3RhKA1vmIvZvvKmXw8PF/rvsfEHc16c+mrqys82TY PehglRNgcn0q7TW4dzT8AGZfpr8Z6cLx9hrqpb6wDAZ5GHIfHcXTuPQ/IQl+myp9u8dL U/lGlXAXd0UGIndUKa/vTJuBmarhFMqKtDLZ4dnPyeNFnVbm31t2rJq0cQj6LOtF9WmP kmu4TDSLOsFUM/x3jFhZuNlBXYaNGTQk16b8L7cn+O/abuKjjhFLGhulCWFcJweNUkad tG/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DlxLGMBD2rycrdizEoUgUGGKpKnTn88LsuKtd1elSBw=; b=KCss7M8g5XWc992oJHOUo1zh2tR8hyzjwD4hBArBNZFkBGBRN9f3CtUBBRQyb3OaB9 TvrbGoC/7z2iPNhP+/3AEMMUHldUz8UJSolb0bUTq0RB60s2H5zRmZ7tHSzkfGjvHws5 MQcZWVSwKoBJUhxHFtwX4YvK6LiSh/TCqVufHueP4qIGWwFvHgKFXKLfvr8xAnN7wopA lFGT48nvgohr3zt9MyvmzVX+hFPWT/5LbbJV4KvsQRiA1U8Lz9QmpRtQmloMgsjL67+9 jFTnN1Ek2UzCcne5lvq8daY9K+ALwSCH5+GGL0gjxNHfuZ/oNPKT2Jzl31X1dID7drUa /BkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530nQh4rndfscbBkXN9HBd/uF/x2K6imL8nu1Q4ix9lm6JxQAOrj 2y0Tei2SbQ+94imQX40t0JmuQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxC2r0nqh8Vxi0xek24UWJ1cmZY58t3GL5MaluqP9APToMZmLh27YEyHyqv0EJsLyzjTq5Wgg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:e504:0:b0:3fc:596d:31c1 with SMTP id r4-20020a63e504000000b003fc596d31c1mr6726918pgh.550.1654079111214; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 03:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leoy-ThinkPad-X240s (n058152077182.netvigator.com. [58.152.77.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f16-20020aa782d0000000b0051b291c2778sm1075508pfn.134.2022.06.01.03.25.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Jun 2022 03:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:25:05 +0800 From: Leo Yan To: Joe Mario Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Alyssa Ross , Ian Rogers , Like Xu , Kajol Jain , Li Huafei , Adam Li , German Gomez , James Clark , Ali Saidi , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] perf c2c: Support display for Arm64 Message-ID: <20220601102505.GA408721@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> References: <20220530114036.3225544-1-leo.yan@linaro.org> <57a826ad-5ceb-ba1d-b80c-452f72720889@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57a826ad-5ceb-ba1d-b80c-452f72720889@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Hi Joe, On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:44:07PM -0400, Joe Mario wrote: [...] > Hi Leo: > I built a new perf with your patches and ran it on a 2-numa node Neoverse platform. > I then ran my simple test that creates reader and writer threads to tug on the same cacheline. > The c2c output is appended below. > > The output looks good, especially where you've broken out the (average) cycles for local and remote peer loads. > And I'm glad to see you fixed the "Node" column. I use that a lot to help detect remote node accesses. Thanks a lot for your testing and suggestions, which are really helpful! > And the "PA cnt" field is working as well, which is important to see if numa_balance is moving the data around. Good to know this. To be honest, before I didn't note for "PA cnt" metric, I checked a bit for the code, this metrics is very useful to understand how it's severe that a cache line is accessed from different addresses, so we can get sense how a cache line is hammered. > ================================================= > Shared Data Cache Line Table > ================================================= > # > # ----------- Cacheline ---------- Peer ------- Load Peer ------- Total Total Total --------- Stores -------- ----- Core Load Hit ----- - LLC Load Hit -- - RMT Load Hit -- --- Load Dram ---- > # Index Address Node PA cnt Snoop Total Local Remote records Loads Stores L1Hit L1Miss N/A FB L1 L2 LclHit LclHitm RmtHit RmtHitm Lcl Rmt > # ..... .................. .... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ........ > # > 0 0x422140 0 6904 74.86% 137 131 6 148008 144970 3038 0 0 3038 0 144833 120 11 0 6 0 0 0 > 1 0xffffd976e63ae5c0 1 6 3.83% 7 7 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 > 2 0xffff07ffbf290980 0 5 2.19% 4 2 2 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 > 3 0xffffd976e57275c0 1 1 0.55% 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 4 0xffffd976e6071c00 1 3 0.55% 1 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 > [snip] > ================================================= > Shared Cache Line Distribution Pareto > ================================================= > # > # -- Peer Snoop -- ------- Store Refs ------ --------- Data address --------- ---------- cycles ---------- Total cpu Shared > # Num Rmt Lcl L1 Hit L1 Miss N/A Offset Node PA cnt Code address rmt peer lcl peer load records cnt Symbol Object Source:Line Node > # ..... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .................. .... ...... .................. ........ ........ ........ ....... ........ .......................... ....... ......................... .... > # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 0 6 131 0 0 3038 0x422140 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 52.60% 0x8 0 1 0x400e6c 0 0 0 1598 4 [.] writer tugtest tugtest.c:152 0 1 > 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 47.40% 0x10 0 1 0x400e7c 0 0 0 1440 4 [.] writer tugtest tugtest.c:153 0 1 > 33.33% 75.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0x20 0 1 0x401018 4095 3803 3419 409 4 [.] reader tugtest tugtest.c:187 0 1 > 66.67% 24.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0x28 0 1 0x401034 4095 3470 3643 413 4 [.] reader tugtest tugtest.c:187 0 1 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1 0 7 0 0 0 0xffffd976e63ae5c0 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0x0 1 1 0xffffd976e4815fbc 0 1333 0 4 2 [k] ktime_get [kernel.kallsyms] seqlock.h:276 1 > 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0x0 1 1 0xffffd976e4816d10 0 266 794 4 3 [k] ktime_get_update_offsets_n [kernel.kallsyms] seqlock.h:276 0 1 > 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0x30 1 1 0xffffd976e4816d20 0 87 150 4 3 [k] ktime_get_update_offsets_n [kernel.kallsyms] timekeeping.c:2298 0 1 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 2 2 2 0 0 0 0xffff07ffbf290980 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 50.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0x4 0 1 0xffffd976e47d2bdc 1217 1600 1147 4 3 [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath [kernel.kallsyms] qspinlock.c:511 0 1 > 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0x4 0 1 0xffffd976e47d2a2c 4033 0 0 1 1 [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath [kernel.kallsyms] qspinlock.c:382 0 1 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for doing this. It looks good. You are welcome! And very appreicate your helping to mature the code. > I'll assume someone else is reviewing your code changes. Yeah, let's give a bit more time for reviewing. Thanks, Leo