Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

[Mike Wolf]

The patch has not been included and there have been no comments so
I'm resending.

This patch adds a new oprofile cpu type for Power 5 revision 3 chips.
The new name is ppc64/power5++ and is used so that the performance
counters can be set up correctly.

Signed-off-by: Mike Wolf <mjw@us.ibm.com>

-------- 
linux-2.6.18.ppc64.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2006-09-19 22:42:06.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.18.ppc64/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2007-06-11 12:29:47.000000000 -0500
@@ -236,6 +236,21 @@
 		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
 		.platform		= "power5",
 	},
+	{	/* Power5++ */
+		.pvr_mask		= 0xffffff00,
+		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0300,
+		.cpu_name		= "POWER5+ (gs)",
+		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_POWER5,
+		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_POWER5_PLUS,
+		.icache_bsize		= 128,
+		.dcache_bsize		= 128,
+		.num_pmcs		= 6,
+		.oprofile_cpu_type	= "ppc64/power5++",
+		.oprofile_type		= PPC_OPROFILE_POWER4,
+		.oprofile_mmcra_sihv	= MMCRA_SIHV,
+		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
+		.platform		= "power5+",
+	},
 	{	/* Power5 GS */
 		.pvr_mask		= 0xffff0000,
 		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0000,

Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

[Michael Neuling]

> The patch has not been included and there have been no comments so
> I'm resending.
> 
> This patch adds a new oprofile cpu type for Power 5 revision 3 chips.
> The new name is ppc64/power5++ and is used so that the performance
> counters can be set up correctly.

Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  

Mikey

> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Wolf <mjw@us.ibm.com>
> 
> -------- 
> linux-2.6.18.ppc64.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2006-09-19 22:4
2:06.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.18.ppc64/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2007-06-11 12:29:47.000
000000 -0500
> @@ -236,6 +236,21 @@
>  		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
>  		.platform		= "power5",
>  	},
> +	{	/* Power5++ */
> +		.pvr_mask		= 0xffffff00,
> +		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0300,
> +		.cpu_name		= "POWER5+ (gs)",
> +		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_POWER5,
> +		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_POWER5_PLUS,
> +		.icache_bsize		= 128,
> +		.dcache_bsize		= 128,
> +		.num_pmcs		= 6,
> +		.oprofile_cpu_type	= "ppc64/power5++",
> +		.oprofile_type		= PPC_OPROFILE_POWER4,
> +		.oprofile_mmcra_sihv	= MMCRA_SIHV,
> +		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
> +		.platform		= "power5+",
> +	},
>  	{	/* Power5 GS */
>  		.pvr_mask		= 0xffff0000,
>  		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0000,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
> 

Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

[Mike Wolf]

Michael Neuling wrote:
>> The patch has not been included and there have been no comments so
>> I'm resending.
>>
>> This patch adds a new oprofile cpu type for Power 5 revision 3 chips.
>> The new name is ppc64/power5++ and is used so that the performance
>> counters can be set up correctly.
>>     
>
> Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
>   
This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
I followed that convention. 
> Mikey
>
>   
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Wolf <mjw@us.ibm.com>
>>
>> -------- 
>> linux-2.6.18.ppc64.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2006-09-19 22:4
>>     
> 2:06.000000000 -0500
>   
>> +++ linux-2.6.18.ppc64/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2007-06-11 12:29:47.000
>>     
> 000000 -0500
>   
>> @@ -236,6 +236,21 @@
>>  		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
>>  		.platform		= "power5",
>>  	},
>> +	{	/* Power5++ */
>> +		.pvr_mask		= 0xffffff00,
>> +		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0300,
>> +		.cpu_name		= "POWER5+ (gs)",
>> +		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_POWER5,
>> +		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_POWER5_PLUS,
>> +		.icache_bsize		= 128,
>> +		.dcache_bsize		= 128,
>> +		.num_pmcs		= 6,
>> +		.oprofile_cpu_type	= "ppc64/power5++",
>> +		.oprofile_type		= PPC_OPROFILE_POWER4,
>> +		.oprofile_mmcra_sihv	= MMCRA_SIHV,
>> +		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
>> +		.platform		= "power5+",
>> +	},
>>  	{	/* Power5 GS */
>>  		.pvr_mask		= 0xffff0000,
>>  		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0000,
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
>> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
>> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>>
>>     

Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

[Michael Neuling]

> >
> > Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
> >   
> This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
> same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
> I followed that convention. 

I'm not too fussed, but if rev 4 comes out, the counters change and we
need power5+++, it's gonna look pretty silly :-)

Mikey

Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

[Will Schmidt]

On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > >
> > > Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
> > >   
> > This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
> > same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
> > I followed that convention. 

There is an oprofile change already made, or in-flight, or at least
submitted, that will be looking for the "power5++" string, so if the
string changes here, it'll need to be changed there too. 

( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.oprofile/4670 )

> 
> I'm not too fussed, but if rev 4 comes out, the counters change and we
> need power5+++, it's gonna look pretty silly :-)

silly, but would be funny to see.  :-) 

> 
> Mikey
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

[Maynard Johnson]

Will Schmidt wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote:
> 
>>>>Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
>>>>  
>>>
>>>This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
>>>same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
I have no idea if there will be a revision 4, etc, but I'm assuming the 
behavior would be the same as rev 3.  So I'm not in favor of changing 
this string to include "rev3" in it.  But whatever decision is made, I 
hope it can be made soon.  The OProfile community is testing a release 
candidate right now that includes the userspace portion of this issue 
which checks for the string "ppc64/power5++".  We hope to GA this next 
oprofile release very soon.

Thanks.
-Maynard
>>>I followed that convention. 
> 
> 
> There is an oprofile change already made, or in-flight, or at least
> submitted, that will be looking for the "power5++" string, so if the
> string changes here, it'll need to be changed there too. 
> 
> ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.oprofile/4670 )
> 
> 
>>I'm not too fussed, but if rev 4 comes out, the counters change and we
>>need power5+++, it's gonna look pretty silly :-)
> 
> 
> silly, but would be funny to see.  :-) 
> 
> 
>>Mikey
>>_______________________________________________
>>Linuxppc-dev mailing list
>>Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
>>https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
> 
> 

Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:33:48PM -0500, Maynard Johnson wrote:
> Will Schmidt wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > 
> >>>>Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>>This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
> >>>same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
> I have no idea if there will be a revision 4, etc, but I'm assuming the 
> behavior would be the same as rev 3.  So I'm not in favor of changing 

The way the cputable patch is now, the rev 4 would match the base revision
anyway.  Maybe it makes more sense to make PVR xxxx01xx and xxxx02xx
explicitly match the old power5+, and make everything else match power5++?

I guess it all depends on the chance of IBM doing another major rev of
power5. Given it's current phase of product maturity I suppose it's not
all that likely. Doing it this way saves yet another cputable entry as
well, since it would otherwise mean two added entries instead of one.


-Olof