Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Dec 2022 21:59:44 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf test: Add event group test | From | Ravi Bangoria <> |
| |
On 01-Dec-22 9:17 PM, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > On 2022-12-01 10:29 a.m., Ravi Bangoria wrote: >>>> /* Uncore pmus that support more than 3 counters */ >>>> static struct uncore_pmus { >>>> char *name; >>>> unsigned long config; >>>> } uncore_pmus[] = { >>>> { "amd_l3", 0x0 }, >>>> { "amd_df", 0x0 }, >>>> { "uncore_imc_xxx", 0xff }, /* Intel */ >>> >>> IMC seems a safe choice. AFAIK, we should have at least uncore_imc_0 for >>> all the existing Intel platforms. { "uncore_imc_0", 0x1 } >> >> Ok. Ian said he don't see uncore_imc_0 on his tigerlake machine. Are you >> sure uncore_imc_0 should be present on all existing Intel platforms? > > For TGL and older client platforms, there is only free running IMC > counters. For other uncore PMUs on the old client platforms, I cannot > guarantee that then always have more then 2 counters. I think you can > skip the uncore test for these old platforms if you need at least 3 > counters. > > >> >>>> { "intel_xxx_pmu2", 0xff }, /* Intel */ >>> >>> Intel doesn't have such uncore PMUs. >> >> Yeah this was just for example purpose. >> >>>> { "abc_pmu1", 0x0 }, /* Arm */ >>>> { "hv_24x7", 0xa }, /* PowerPC */ >>>> { ... }, >>>> }; >>>> >>>> perf_pmus__for_each_pmu(pmu) { >>>> if (pmu present in uncore_pmus[]) >>>> type[2] = pmu->type; >>>> config[2] = pmu->config;> } >>> >>> >>> Not sure the uncore_pmus[] can cover all possible names for all >>> architectures. >> >> It doesn't need to cover _all_ possible names. It just needs to cover >> minimal set of names which can cover all platforms for that architecture. >>>> Maybe we should fall back to the first uncore PMU and try again if >>> nothing match the uncore_pmus[]. >> >> That's a good point. However, this can endup with the same problem you >> mentioned: it may trigger false alarm on some platform. So better to >> skip the test(and let someone add proper pmu in this list) rather than >> proving false negative result? > > OK. Skipping the test for this case sounds good to me.
Thanks. Will respin with this change.
Ravi
| |