Re: [PATCH v5 28/34] perf pmus: Split pmus list into core and other

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:35:02PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:30 PM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 09-Jun-23 10:10 AM, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:01 PM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Ian,
> > >
> > > Hi Ravi,
> > >
> > >> On 27-May-23 12:52 PM, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > >>> Split the pmus list into core and other. This will later allow for
> > >>> the core and other pmus to be populated separately.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> > >>> Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>  tools/perf/util/pmus.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > >>>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmus.c b/tools/perf/util/pmus.c
> > >>> index 58ff7937e9b7..4ef4fecd335f 100644
> > >>> --- a/tools/perf/util/pmus.c
> > >>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/pmus.c
> > >>> @@ -12,13 +12,19 @@
> > >>>  #include "pmu.h"
> > >>>  #include "print-events.h"
> > >>>
> > >>> -static LIST_HEAD(pmus);
> > >>> +static LIST_HEAD(core_pmus);
> > >>> +static LIST_HEAD(other_pmus);
> > >>
> > >> AMD ibs_fetch// and ibs_op// PMUs are per SMT-thread and are independent of
> > >> core hw pmu. I wonder where does IBS fit. Currently it's part of other_pmus.
> > >> So, is it safe to assume that other_pmus are not just uncore pmus? In that
> > >> case shall we add a comment here?
> > >
> > > I'm a fan of comments. The code has landed in perf-tools-next:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/pmus.c?h=perf-tools-next
> > > Do you have any suggestions on wording? I've had limited success
> > > adding glossary terms, for example, offcore vs uncore:
> > > https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Glossary#Offcore
> > > I think offcore is a more interconnect related term, but I'd prefer
> > > not to be inventing the definitions. I'd like it if we could be less
> > > ambiguous in the code and provide useful information on the wiki, so
> > > help appreciated :-)
> >
> > Does this look good?
> >
> > /*
> >  * core_pmus:  A PMU belongs to core_pmus if it's name is "cpu" or it's sysfs
> >  *             directory contains "cpus" file. All PMUs belonging to core_pmus
> >  *             must have pmu->is_core=1. If there are more than one PMUs in
> >  *             this list, perf interprets it as a heterogeneous platform.
> 
> 
> Looks good but a nit here. It is heterogeneous from point-of-view of
> PMUs, there are ARM systems where they are heterogenous with big and
> little cores but they have a single homogeneous PMU driver. The perf
> tool will treat them as homogeneous.

For the sake of the comment: there's a little more nuance here.

The intent is that each distinct micro-architecture has its own PMU instance,
but some people write their device trees incorrectly with a single pmu node
rather than separate pmu nodes per micro-architecture.

That should be viewed as a FW bug, even if we have to deal with it here.

Thanks,
Mark.