[PATCH v2] perf tools: Add ARM Statistical Profiling Extensions (SPE) support
Mark Rutland
mark.rutland at arm.com
Fri Aug 18 10:36:09 PDT 2017
Hi Kim,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:11:50PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> Hi Mark, I've tried to proceed as much as possible without your
> response, so if you still have comments to my above comments, please
> comment in-line above, otherwise review the v2 patch below?
Apologies again for the late response, and thanks for the updated patch!
[...]
> From 464d943dcac15d946863399001174e4dc4e00594 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips at arm.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:11:57 -0600
> Subject: [PATCH v2] perf tools: Add ARM Statistical Profiling Extensions
> (SPE) support
>
> 'perf record' and 'perf report --dump-raw-trace' supported in this release
>
> Example usage:
>
> taskset -c 2 ./perf record -C 2 -c 1024 -e arm_spe_0/ts_enable=1,pa_enable=1/ \
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null count=10000
>
> perf report --dump-raw-trace
>
> Note that the perf.data file is portable, so the report can be run on another
> architecture host if necessary.
>
> Output will contain raw SPE data and its textual representation, such as:
>
> 0xc7d0 [0x30]: PERF_RECORD_AUXTRACE size: 0x82f70 offset: 0 ref: 0x1e947e88189 idx: 0 tid: -1 cpu: 2
> .
> . ... ARM SPE data: size 536432 bytes
> . 00000000: 4a 01 B COND
> . 00000002: b1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 80 TGT 0 el0 ns=1
> . 0000000b: 42 42 RETIRED NOT-TAKEN
> . 0000000d: b0 20 41 c0 ad ff ff 00 80 PC ffffadc04120 el0 ns=1
> . 00000016: 98 00 00 LAT 0 TOT
> . 00000019: 71 80 3e f7 46 e9 01 00 00 TS 2101429616256
> . 00000022: 49 01 ST
> . 00000024: b2 50 bd ba 73 00 80 ff ff VA ffff800073babd50
> . 0000002d: b3 50 bd ba f3 00 00 00 80 PA f3babd50 ns=1
> . 00000036: 9a 00 00 LAT 0 XLAT
> . 00000039: 42 16 RETIRED L1D-ACCESS TLB-ACCESS
> . 0000003b: b0 8c b4 1e 08 00 00 ff ff PC ff0000081eb48c el3 ns=1
> . 00000044: 98 00 00 LAT 0 TOT
> . 00000047: 71 cc 44 f7 46 e9 01 00 00 TS 2101429617868
> . 00000050: 48 00 INSN-OTHER
> . 00000052: 42 02 RETIRED
> . 00000054: b0 58 54 1f 08 00 00 ff ff PC ff0000081f5458 el3 ns=1
> . 0000005d: 98 00 00 LAT 0 TOT
> . 00000060: 71 cc 44 f7 46 e9 01 00 00 TS 2101429617868
So FWIW, I think this is a good example of why that padding I requested
last time round matters.
For the first PC packet, I had to count the number of characters to see
that it was a TTBR0 address, which is made much clearer with leading
padding, as 0000ffffadc04120. With the addresses padded, the EL and NS
fields would also be aligned, making it *much* easier to scan by eye.
[...]
> - multiple SPE clusters/domains support pending potential driver changes?
As covered in my other reply, I don't believe that the driver is going
to change in this regard. Userspace will need to handle multiple SPE
instances.
I'll ignore that in the code below for now.
> - CPU mask / new record behaviour bisected to commit e3ba76deef23064 "perf
> tools: Force uncore events to system wide monitoring". Waiting to hear back
> on why driver can't do system wide monitoring, even across PPIs, by e.g.,
> sharing the SPE interrupts in one handler (SPE's don't differ in this record
> regard).
Could you elaborate on this? I don't follow the interrupt handler
comments.
[...]
> +static u64 arm_spe_reference(struct auxtrace_record *itr __maybe_unused)
> +{
> + u64 ts;
> +
> + asm volatile ("isb; mrs %0, cntvct_el0" : "=r" (ts));
> +
> + return ts;
> +}
As covered in my other reply, please don't use the counter for this.
It sounds like we need a simple/generic function to get a nonce, that
we could share with the ETM code.
[...]
> +#define BIT(n) (1 << (n))
> +
> +#define BIT61 ((uint64_t)1 << 61)
> +#define BIT62 ((uint64_t)1 << 62)
> +#define BIT63 ((uint64_t)1 << 63)
> +
> +#define NS_FLAG BIT63
> +#define EL_FLAG (BIT62 | BIT61)
This would be far simpler as:
#define BIT(n) (1UL << (n))
#define NS_FLAG BIT(63)
#define EL_FLAG (BIT(62) | BIT(61))
[...]
> +/* return ARM SPE payload size from its encoding:
> + * 00 : byte
> + * 01 : halfword (2)
> + * 10 : word (4)
> + * 11 : doubleword (8)
> + */
> +static int payloadlen(unsigned char byte)
> +{
> + return 1 << ((byte & 0x30) >> 4);
> +}
It might be worth stating in the comment that this is encoded in bits
5:4 of the byte, since otherwise it looks odd.
> +
> +static int arm_spe_get_payload(const unsigned char *buf, size_t len,
> + struct arm_spe_pkt *packet)
> +{
> + size_t payload_len = payloadlen(buf[0]);
> +
> + if (len < 1 + payload_len)
> + return ARM_SPE_NEED_MORE_BYTES;
If you did `buf++` here, you could avoid the `+ 1` in all the cases below.
> +
> + switch (payload_len) {
> + case 1: packet->payload = *(uint8_t *)(buf + 1); break;
> + case 2: packet->payload = le16_to_cpu(*(uint16_t *)(buf + 1)); break;
> + case 4: packet->payload = le32_to_cpu(*(uint32_t *)(buf + 1)); break;
> + case 8: packet->payload = le64_to_cpu(*(uint64_t *)(buf + 1)); break;
> + default: return ARM_SPE_BAD_PACKET;
> + }
> +
> + return 1 + payload_len;
> +}
[...]
> +int arm_spe_get_packet(const unsigned char *buf, size_t len,
> + struct arm_spe_pkt *packet)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = arm_spe_do_get_packet(buf, len, packet);
> + if (ret > 0 && packet->type == ARM_SPE_PAD) {
> + while (ret < 16 && len > (size_t)ret && !buf[ret])
> + ret += 1;
> + }
> + return ret;
> +}
What's this doing? Skipping padding? What's the significance of 16?
> +int arm_spe_pkt_desc(const struct arm_spe_pkt *packet, char *buf,
> + size_t buf_len)
> +{
> + int ret, ns, el, index = packet->index;
> + unsigned long long payload = packet->payload;
> + const char *name = arm_spe_pkt_name(packet->type);
> +
> + switch (packet->type) {
> + case ARM_SPE_BAD:
> + case ARM_SPE_PAD:
> + case ARM_SPE_END:
> + return snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s", name);
> + case ARM_SPE_EVENTS: {
> + size_t blen = buf_len;
> +
> + ret = 0;
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, "EV");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + if (payload & 0x1) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " EXCEPTION-GEN");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x2) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " RETIRED");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x4) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " L1D-ACCESS");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x8) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " L1D-REFILL");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x10) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " TLB-ACCESS");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x20) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " TLB-REFILL");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x40) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " NOT-TAKEN");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x80) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " MISPRED");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (index > 1) {
> + if (payload & 0x100) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " LLC-ACCESS");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x200) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " LLC-REFILL");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + if (payload & 0x400) {
> + ret = snprintf(buf, buf_len, " REMOTE-ACCESS");
> + buf += ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + }
> + }
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + blen -= ret;
> + return buf_len - blen;
> + }
This looks like it could be turned into another switch, sharing the
repeated logic.
Thanks,
Mark.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list