Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1519325

Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC

From Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC
Date 2016-11-10 20:50 +0100
Message-ID <sC3wd-2e1-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <sxAsN-5HA-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sxAsN-5HA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sC0RN-ke-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..a7b4277
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > + * Some notes about the various counters supported by this "uncore" PMU
> > + * and the design:
> > + *
> > + * All counters are 64 bit long.
> > + * There are no overflow interrupts.
> > + * Counters are summarized per node/socket.
> > + * Most devices appear as separate PCI devices per socket with the exception
> > + * of OCX TLK which appears as one PCI device per socket and contains several
> > + * units with counters that are merged.
> 
> As a general note, as I commented on the QC L2 PMU driver [1,2], we need
> to figure out if we should be aggregating physical PMUs or not.
> 
> Judging by subsequent patches, each unit has individual counters and
> controls, and thus we cannot atomically read/write counters or controls
> across them. As such, I do not think we should aggregate them, and
> should expose them separately to userspace.

I thought each unit was registered as a separate PMU to perf? Or are you
specifically commenting on the OCX TLK? The comment there suggests that
the units cannot be individually enabled/disabled and, without docs, I
trust that's the case.

Will

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH v4 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support  Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com> - 2016-10-29 14:00 +0200
  [PATCH v4 5/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX OCX TLK uncore support Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com> - 2016-10-29 14:00 +0200
  [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com> - 2016-10-29 14:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for  Cavium ThunderX SOC Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-11-09 01:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for  Cavium ThunderX SOC Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-11-10 18:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for  Cavium ThunderX SOC Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-11-10 20:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for  Cavium ThunderX SOC Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-11-11 12:20 +0100
  [PATCH v4 3/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX L2C CBC uncore support Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com> - 2016-10-29 14:00 +0200
  [PATCH v4 4/5] arm64: perf: Cavium ThunderX LMC uncore support Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com> - 2016-10-29 14:00 +0200

csiph-web