From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752767Ab1GFNwO (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:52:14 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:57914 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752553Ab1GFNwN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:52:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] perf: Add memory load/store events generic code From: Peter Zijlstra To: Lin Ming Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , Stephane Eranian , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-kernel , Robert Richter In-Reply-To: <1309931621.18875.130.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> References: <1309766525-14089-1-git-send-email-ming.m.lin@intel.com> <1309766525-14089-2-git-send-email-ming.m.lin@intel.com> <1309778192.3282.27.camel@twins> <1309866860.2381.1.camel@localhost> <1309875468.3282.210.camel@twins> <1309931621.18875.130.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:51:42 +0200 Message-ID: <1309960302.3282.283.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 13:53 +0800, Lin Ming wrote: > Do you mean to use the "impossible combinations" to express the inverse? Nah, impossible would be things like having neither LOAD nor STORE set. > MEM_STORE_DCU_MISS as: store-l2-l3-dram > MEM_STORE_STLB_MISS as: store-itlb-dtlb > > How about below code? Right, something like that. Robert can the IBS data source data be mapped onto this as well? > #define PERF_MEM_LOAD (1ULL << 0) > #define PERF_MEM_STORE (1ULL << 1) > #define PERF_MEM_ATOMIC (1ULL << 2) > #define PERF_MEM_L1 (1ULL << 3) > #define PERF_MEM_L2 (1ULL << 4) > #define PERF_MEM_L3 (1ULL << 5) > #define PERF_MEM_RAM (1ULL << 6) > #define PERF_MEM_UNKNOWN (1ULL << 7) > #define PERF_MEM_IO (1ULL << 8) > #define PERF_MEM_UNCACHED (1ULL << 9) > #define PERF_MEM_RESERVED (1ULL << 10) > #define PERF_MEM_LOCAL (1ULL << 11) > #define PERF_MEM_REMOTE (1ULL << 12) > #define PERF_MEM_SNOOP (1ULL << 13) > #define PERF_MEM_MODIFIED (1ULL << 14) > #define PERF_MEM_EXCLUSIVE (1ULL << 15) > #define PERF_MEM_SHARED (1ULL << 16) > #define PERF_MEM_INVALID (1ULL << 17) > #define PERF_MEM_ITLB (1ULL << 18) > #define PERF_MEM_DTLB (1ULL << 19) > #define PERF_MEM_STLB (1ULL << 20) Are these TLB hit or miss? > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_L1D_HIT \ > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_L1) > > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_L1D_MISS \ > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_L2 | PERF_MEM_L3 | PERF_MEM_RAM) > > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_STLB_HIT \ > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_STLB) > > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_STLB_MISS \ > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_ITLB | PERF_MEM_DTLB) Going by the definition in table 30-22 neither of these seem correct, a STLB_HIT was defined as DTLB|STLB whereas a STLB_MISS was missing both (resulting in a full page-table walk I presume). > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_ATOMIC \ > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_ATOMIC) > > #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_STLB_HIT \ > (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_STLB) > > #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_STLB_MISS \ > (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_ITLB | PERF_MEM_DTLB) idem > #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_ATOMIC \ > (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_ATOMIC) >