[PATCH 01/32] perf: Allow a PMU to have a parent

[Robin Murphy]

On 2023-06-06 14:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:30:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 
>>>> Uh, *which* CPU device? Do we have a container device for all CPUs?
>>>
>>> drivers/base/cpu.c:per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, cpu) for whatever the core
>>> pmu is for that cpu ?
>>
>> ... but the struct pmu covers several CPUs, so I don't have a single 'cpu', no?
>>
>> If I have a system where cpu{0,1,2} are Cortex-A53 and cpu{3,4} are Cortex-A57,
>> I have two struct pmu instances, each associated with several CPUs. When I
>> probe each of those I determine a cpumask for each.
> 
> Bah :/ Clearly I overlooked the disparity there.
> 
>>>>>> My overall favorite is an l2 cache related PMU that is spun up in
>>>>>> arch/arm/kernel/irq.c init_IRQ()
>>>>
>>>> That's an artifact of the L2 cache controller driver getting initialized there;
>>>> ideally we'd have a device for the L2 cache itself (which presumably should
>>>> hang off an aggregate CPU device).
>>>
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/cache/indexM
>>>
>>> has a struct device somewhere in
>>> drivers/base/cacheinfo.c:ci_index_dev or somesuch.
>>
>> I guess, but I don't think the L2 cache controller (the PL310) is actually tied
>> to that today.
> 
> All it would do is make fancy links in sysfs I think, who cares ;-)
> 
>>>>> Yeah, we're going to have a ton of them as well. Some of them are PCI
>>>>> devices and have a clear parent, others, not so much :/
>>>>
>>>> In a number of places the only thing we have is the PMU driver, and we don't
>>>> have a driver (or device) for the HW block it's a part of. Largely that's
>>>> interconnect PMUs; we could create container devices there.
>>>
>>> Dont they have a PCI device? But yeah, some are going to be a wee bit
>>> challenging.
>>
>> The system might not even have PCI, so it's arguable that they should just hang
>> off an MMIO bus (which is effectively what the platofrm bus is).
> 
> You and your dodgy platforms :-)

For system PMUs we'll pretty much always have a platform device 
corresponding to a DT/ACPI entry used to describe MMIO registers and/or 
interrupts. In many cases the PMU is going to be the only part of the 
underlying device that is meaningful to Linux anyway, so I don't see any 
issue with just hanging the PMU device off its corresponding platform 
device - it still gives the user a way to map a PMU instance back to 
some understandable system topology (i.e. ACPI/DT) to disambiguate, and 
that's the most important thing.

Thanks,
Robin.