[PATCH v4 6/8] perf cs_etm: Record ts_source in AUXTRACE_INFO for ETMv4 and ETE
Suzuki K Poulose
suzuki.poulose at arm.com
Thu Jan 19 07:56:55 PST 2023
On 19/01/2023 15:43, James Clark wrote:
> From: German Gomez <german.gomez at arm.com>
>
> Read the value of ts_source exposed by the driver and store it in the
> ETMv4 and ETE header. If the interface doesn't exist (such as in older
> Kernels), defaults to a safe value of -1.
Super minor nits feel free to ignore.
>
> Signed-off-by: German Gomez <german.gomez at arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark at arm.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/perf/util/cs-etm-base.c | 2 ++
> tools/perf/util/cs-etm.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> index b526ffe550a5..481e170cd3f1 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static const char * const metadata_etmv4_ro[] = {
> [CS_ETMV4_TRCIDR2] = "trcidr/trcidr2",
> [CS_ETMV4_TRCIDR8] = "trcidr/trcidr8",
> [CS_ETMV4_TRCAUTHSTATUS] = "mgmt/trcauthstatus",
> + [CS_ETMV4_TS_SOURCE] = "ts_source",
> };
>
> static const char * const metadata_ete_ro[] = {
> @@ -62,6 +63,7 @@ static const char * const metadata_ete_ro[] = {
> [CS_ETE_TRCIDR8] = "trcidr/trcidr8",
> [CS_ETE_TRCAUTHSTATUS] = "mgmt/trcauthstatus",
> [CS_ETE_TRCDEVARCH] = "mgmt/trcdevarch",
> + [CS_ETE_TS_SOURCE] = "ts_source",
> };
>
> static bool cs_etm_is_etmv4(struct auxtrace_record *itr, int cpu);
> @@ -613,6 +615,32 @@ static int cs_etm_get_ro(struct perf_pmu *pmu, int cpu, const char *path)
> return val;
> }
>
> +static int cs_etm_get_ro_signed(struct perf_pmu *pmu, int cpu, const char *path)
minor nit: This doesn't necessarily care if it is RO ?
Also, does it make sense to rename to include cpu relation :
say, cs_etm_pmu_cpu_get_signed() ?
> +{
> + char pmu_path[PATH_MAX];
> + int scan;
> + int val = 0;
> +
> + /* Get RO metadata from sysfs */
> + snprintf(pmu_path, PATH_MAX, "cpu%d/%s", cpu, path);
> +
> + scan = perf_pmu__scan_file(pmu, pmu_path, "%d", &val);
> + if (scan != 1)
> + pr_err("%s: error reading: %s\n", __func__, pmu_path);
> +
> + return val;
> +}
> +
> +static bool cs_etm_pmu_path_exists(struct perf_pmu *pmu, int cpu, const char *path)
nit: cs_etm_pmu_cpu_path_exists() ? To make the "cpu" relation explicit ?
Otherwise looks good to me.
Suzuki
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list