[PATCH] perf arm-spe: Add support for SPE Data Source packet on HiSilicon HIP12

[Leo Yan]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 10:16:40AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> > 
> > Add data source encoding for HiSilicon HIP12 and coresponding mapping
> > to the perf's memory data source. This will help to synthesize the data
> > and support upper layer tools like perf-mem and perf-c2c.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong at hisilicon.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h              |   2 +
> >   tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h        |   2 +

Please split into two patches.  One is a kernel patch and another is a
tool patch.

[...]

> > --- a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.h
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.h
> > @@ -82,6 +82,23 @@ enum arm_spe_ampereone_data_source {
> >   	ARM_SPE_AMPEREONE_L2D                           = 0x9,
> >   };
> > +enum arm_spe_hisi_hip_data_source {
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_PEER_CPU		= 0,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_PEER_CPU_HITM		= 1,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_L3			= 2,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_L3_HITM		= 3,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_PEER_CLUSTER		= 4,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_PEER_CLUSTER_HITM	= 5,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_REMOTE_SOCKET		= 6,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_REMOTE_SOCKET_HITM	= 7,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_LOCAL			= 8,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_REMOTE			= 9,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_NC_DEV			= 13,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_L2			= 16,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_L2_HITM		= 17,
> > +	ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_L1			= 18,
> > +};
> > +
> >   struct arm_spe_record {
> >   	enum arm_spe_sample_type type;
> >   	int err;
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c
> > index 2a9775649cc2..eceae4219601 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c
> > @@ -571,6 +571,11 @@ static const struct midr_range ampereone_ds_encoding_cpus[] = {
> >   	{},
> >   };
> > +static const struct midr_range hisi_hip_ds_encoding_cpus[] = {
> > +	MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_HISI_HIP12),
> > +	{},
> > +};
> > +
> >   static void arm_spe__sample_flags(struct arm_spe_queue *speq)
> >   {
> >   	const struct arm_spe_record *record = &speq->decoder->record;
> > @@ -718,9 +723,105 @@ static void arm_spe__synth_data_source_ampereone(const struct arm_spe_record *re
> >   	arm_spe__synth_data_source_common(&common_record, data_src);
> >   }
> > +static void arm_spe__synth_data_source_hisi_hip(const struct arm_spe_record *record,
> > +						union perf_mem_data_src *data_src)
> > +{
> > +	/* Use common synthesis method to handle store operations */
> > +	if (record->op & ARM_SPE_OP_ST) {
> > +		arm_spe__synth_data_source_common(record, data_src);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	switch (record->source) {
> > +	case ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_PEER_CPU:
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_L3 | PERF_MEM_LVL_HIT;
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl_num = PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_L3;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoop = PERF_MEM_SNOOP_NONE;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoopx = PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_PEER;

Seems it is conflict to set both 'PERF_MEM_SNOOP_NONE' and
'PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_PEER'.

Remove setting 'PERF_MEM_SNOOP_NONE' in this case?

> > +		break;
> > +	case ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_PEER_CPU_HITM:
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_L3 | PERF_MEM_LVL_HIT;
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl_num = PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_L3;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoop = PERF_MEM_SNOOP_HITM;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoopx = PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_PEER;
> > +		break;
> > +	case ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_L3:
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_L3 | PERF_MEM_LVL_HIT;
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl_num = PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_L3;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoop = PERF_MEM_SNOOP_NONE;
> > +		break;
> > +	case ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_L3_HITM:
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_L3 | PERF_MEM_LVL_HIT;
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl_num = PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_L3;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoop = PERF_MEM_SNOOP_HITM;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoopx = PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_PEER;
> > +		break;
> > +	case ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_PEER_CLUSTER:
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_REM_CCE1 | PERF_MEM_LVL_HIT;
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl_num = PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_L3;

Seems to me, a CPU has L3 cache, would the cluster has a higher level's
cache?

> > +		data_src->mem_snoop = PERF_MEM_SNOOP_NONE;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoopx = PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_PEER;

Ditto for the confliction for the two flags 'SNOOP_NONE' and
'SNOOPX_PEER'.

> > +		break;
> > +	case ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_PEER_CLUSTER_HITM:
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_REM_CCE1 | PERF_MEM_LVL_HIT;
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl_num = PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_L3;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoop = PERF_MEM_SNOOP_HITM;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoopx = PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_PEER;
> > +		break;
> > +	case ARM_SPE_HISI_HIP_REMOTE_SOCKET:
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_REM_CCE2;
> > +		data_src->mem_lvl_num = PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_ANY_CACHE;
> > +		data_src->mem_remote = PERF_MEM_REMOTE_REMOTE;
> > +		data_src->mem_snoopx = PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_PEER;
> 
> Hi Yicong,
> 
> Is the mem_snoop setting missing from this one?

The field 'mem_snoopx' is an extension to the field 'mem_snoop'.

If the field 'mem_snoopx' is set, it is no need to set 'mem_snoop'.

Thanks,
Leo