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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1288601 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCHv3 3/5] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all counters

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCHv3 3/5] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all  counters Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2015-12-10 16:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCHv3 3/5] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all  counters Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2015-12-10 16:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCHv3 3/5] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all  counters "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com> - 2015-12-10 16:50 +0100

#1288601 — Re: [PATCHv3 3/5] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all counters

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:03:25PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> Adds helper routines to disable the counter controls for
> all the counters on the CCI PMU and restore it back, by
> preserving the original state in caller provided mask.
> 
> Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K. Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> ---
> Changes since V2:
>   - Rename the functions to pmu_restore_counters, pmu_disable_counters
>   - Added comment describing why we use a private mask
> ---
>  drivers/bus/arm-cci.c |   38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c b/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
> index 48936c8..91a9d5d 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
> @@ -669,6 +669,44 @@ pmu_get_event(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, int idx)
>  	return pmu_read_register(cci_pmu, idx, CCI_PMU_EVT_SEL);
>  }
>  
> +
> +/*
> + * For all counters on the CCI-PMU, disable any 'enabled' counters,
> + * saving the changed counters in the mask, so that we can restore
> + * it later using pmu_restore_counters. The mask is private to the
> + * caller. We cannot rely on the used_mask maintained by the CCI_PMU
> + * as it only tells us if the counter is assigned to perf_event or not.
> + * The state of the perf_event cannot be locked by the PMU layer, hence
> + * we check the individual counter status (which can be locked by
> + * cci_pm->hw_events->pmu_lock).
> + */
> +static void __maybe_unused
> +pmu_disable_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < cci_pmu->num_cntrs; i++) {
> +		if (pmu_counter_is_enabled(cci_pmu, i)) {
> +			set_bit(i, mask);
> +			pmu_disable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
> +		} else
> +			clear_bit(i, mask);

Can we not assume a clean mask to begin with?

> +	}
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Restore the status of the counters. Reversal of the pmu_disable_counters().
> + * For each counter set in the mask, enable the counter back.
> + */
> +static void __maybe_unused
> +pmu_restore_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)

This would probably be better with s/restore/enable/ for consistency
with pmu_disable_counters.

Other than that this looks fine to me.

Mark.

> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for_each_set_bit(i, mask, cci_pmu->num_cntrs)
> +		pmu_enable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Returns the number of programmable counters actually implemented
>   * by the cci
> -- 
> 1.7.9.5
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1288613

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:42:41PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> On 10/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:03:25PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> 
> 
> >>+static void __maybe_unused
> >>+pmu_disable_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
> >>+{
> >>+	int i;
> >>+
> >>+	for (i = 0; i < cci_pmu->num_cntrs; i++) {
> >>+		if (pmu_counter_is_enabled(cci_pmu, i)) {
> >>+			set_bit(i, mask);
> >>+			pmu_disable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
> >>+		} else
> >>+			clear_bit(i, mask);
> >
> >Can we not assume a clean mask to begin with?
> 
> If we force the caller to pass a clean mask, yes we could. I am fine
> with either approach.
> 
> >
> >>+	}
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+/*
> >>+ * Restore the status of the counters. Reversal of the pmu_disable_counters().
> >>+ * For each counter set in the mask, enable the counter back.
> >>+ */
> >>+static void __maybe_unused
> >>+pmu_restore_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
> >
> >This would probably be better with s/restore/enable/ for consistency
> >with pmu_disable_counters.
> 
> I had thought as well, but then chose restore as we don't enable all the
> counters. Given that we pass a mask argument, it is fine to change it to
> enable and will do that in the next one.

How about s/disable/save/ instead, following local_irq_{save,restore} ?

It just felt odd having disable/restore as a pairing.

Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1288619

On 10/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:03:25PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:


>> +static void __maybe_unused
>> +pmu_disable_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
>> +{
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < cci_pmu->num_cntrs; i++) {
>> +		if (pmu_counter_is_enabled(cci_pmu, i)) {
>> +			set_bit(i, mask);
>> +			pmu_disable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
>> +		} else
>> +			clear_bit(i, mask);
>
> Can we not assume a clean mask to begin with?

If we force the caller to pass a clean mask, yes we could. I am fine
with either approach.

>
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Restore the status of the counters. Reversal of the pmu_disable_counters().
>> + * For each counter set in the mask, enable the counter back.
>> + */
>> +static void __maybe_unused
>> +pmu_restore_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
>
> This would probably be better with s/restore/enable/ for consistency
> with pmu_disable_counters.

I had thought as well, but then chose restore as we don't enable all the
counters. Given that we pass a mask argument, it is fine to change it to
enable and will do that in the next one.

>
> Other than that this looks fine to me.

Thanks for the review.

Cheers
Suzuki

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web