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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475E8C433E0 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1CBF206DF for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:02:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A1CBF206DF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1KJy4vTdzDqpq for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:02:26 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=kjain@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B1KFd6R5PzDqWF for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 20:59:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 067Aa9qk084031; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:59:28 -0400 Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 322nuntncp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 06:59:27 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 067AtIdl009966; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:59:26 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.26]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 322hd94utq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 10:59:26 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 067AxPPl7209258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:59:25 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B98B205F; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:59:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AEEB2064; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:59:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.118.59]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:59:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] powerpc/perf/hv-24x7: Add cpu hotplug support To: Michael Ellerman , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <20200626102824.270923-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com> <20200626102824.270923-2-kjain@linux.ibm.com> <87zh8d5oab.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> From: kajoljain Message-ID: <03a3af5c-5d04-8c55-5597-d231f0ab014b@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:29:22 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87zh8d5oab.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-07_06:2020-07-07, 2020-07-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2007070077 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: nathanl@linux.ibm.com, ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, suka@us.ibm.com, maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 7/6/20 8:43 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Kajol Jain writes: >> Patch here adds cpu hotplug functions to hv_24x7 pmu. >> A new cpuhp_state "CPUHP_AP_PERF_POWERPC_HV_24x7_ONLINE" enum >> is added. >> >> The online callback function updates the cpumask only if its >> empty. As the primary intention of adding hotplug support >> is to designate a CPU to make HCALL to collect the >> counter data. >> >> The offline function test and clear corresponding cpu in a cpumask >> and update cpumask to any other active cpu. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain >> Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy >> --- >> arch/powerpc/perf/hv-24x7.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/cpuhotplug.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/hv-24x7.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/hv-24x7.c >> index db213eb7cb02..ce4739e2b407 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/perf/hv-24x7.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/hv-24x7.c >> @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ static int interface_version; >> /* Whether we have to aggregate result data for some domains. */ >> static bool aggregate_result_elements; >> >> +static cpumask_t hv_24x7_cpumask; >> + >> static bool domain_is_valid(unsigned domain) >> { >> switch (domain) { >> @@ -1641,6 +1643,44 @@ static struct pmu h_24x7_pmu = { >> .capabilities = PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE, >> }; >> >> +static int ppc_hv_24x7_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + /* Make this CPU the designated target for counter collection */ > > The comment implies every newly onlined CPU will become the target, but > actually it's only the first onlined CPU. > > So I think the comment needs updating, or you could just drop the > comment, I think the code is fairly clear by itself. Hi Michael, Thanks for reviewing the patch. Sure I will update it accordingly. > >> + if (cpumask_empty(&hv_24x7_cpumask)) >> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &hv_24x7_cpumask); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static int ppc_hv_24x7_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + int target = -1; > > No need to initialise target, you assign to it unconditionally below. Ok Will change. > >> + /* Check if exiting cpu is used for collecting 24x7 events */ >> + if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu, &hv_24x7_cpumask)) >> + return 0; >> + >> + /* Find a new cpu to collect 24x7 events */ >> + target = cpumask_last(cpu_active_mask); > > Any reason to use cpumask_last() vs cpumask_first(), or a randomly > chosen CPU? Incase we sequentially offline multiple cpus, taking cpumask_first() may add some latency in that scenario. So, I was trying to test benchmark in power9 lpar with 16 cpu, by off-lining cpu 0-14 With cpumask_last: This is what I got. real 0m2.812s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.003s With cpulast_any: real 0m3.690s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.062s That's why I just went with cpumask_last thing. Please Let me know if any changes required. > >> + if (target < 0 || target >= nr_cpu_ids) >> + return -1; >> + >> + /* Migrate 24x7 events to the new target */ >> + cpumask_set_cpu(target, &hv_24x7_cpumask); >> + perf_pmu_migrate_context(&h_24x7_pmu, cpu, target); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static int hv_24x7_cpu_hotplug_init(void) >> +{ >> + return cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_PERF_POWERPC_HV_24x7_ONLINE, >> + "perf/powerpc/hv_24x7:online", >> + ppc_hv_24x7_cpu_online, >> + ppc_hv_24x7_cpu_offline); >> +} >> + >> static int hv_24x7_init(void) >> { >> int r; >> @@ -1685,6 +1725,11 @@ static int hv_24x7_init(void) >> if (r) >> return r; >> >> + /* init cpuhotplug */ >> + r = hv_24x7_cpu_hotplug_init(); >> + if (r) >> + pr_err("hv_24x7: CPU hotplug init failed\n"); >> + > > The hotplug initialisation shouldn't fail unless something is badly > wrong. I think you should just fail initialisation of the entire PMU if > that happens, which will make the error handling in the next patch much > simpler. > I will update it. Thanks, Kajol Jain > cheers > >> r = perf_pmu_register(&h_24x7_pmu, h_24x7_pmu.name, -1); >> if (r) >> return r;