lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/4] perf arm-spe: Use SPE data source for neoverse cores
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 01:28:58PM +0100, German Gomez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It seems I gave the Review tags a bit too early this time. Apologies for
> the inconvenience. Indeed there was more interesting discussions to be
> had :)
>
> (Probably best to remove by tags for the next re-spin)

Now worries, German. Your review and testing are very helpful :)

> On 29/03/2022 15:32, Ali Saidi wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> I still think we should consider to extend the memory levels to
> >> demonstrate clear momory hierarchy on Arm archs, I personally like the
> >> definitions for "PEER_CORE", "LCL_CLSTR", "PEER_CLSTR" and "SYS_CACHE",
> >> though these cache levels are not precise like L1/L2/L3 levels, they can
> >> help us to map very well for the cache topology on Arm archs and without
> >> any confusion. We could take this as an enhancement if you don't want
> >> to bother the current patch set's upstreaming.
> > I'd like to do this in a separate patch, but I have one other proposal. The
> > Neoverse cores L2 is strictly inclusive of the L1, so even if it's in the L1,
> > it's also in the L2. Given that the Graviton systems and afaik the Ampere
> > systems don't have any cache between the L2 and the SLC, thus anything from
> > PEER_CORE, LCL_CLSTR, or PEER_CLSTR would hit in the L2, perhaps we
> > should just set L2 for these cases? German, are you good with this for now?
>
> Sorry for the delay. I'd like to also check this with someone. I'll try
> to get back asap. In the meantime, if this approach is also OK with Leo,
> I think it would be fine by me.

Thanks for the checking internally. Let me just bring up my another
thinking (sorry that my suggestion is float): another choice is we set
ANY_CACHE as cache level if we are not certain the cache level, and
extend snoop field to indicate the snooping logics, like:

PERF_MEM_SNOOP_PEER_CORE
PERF_MEM_SNOOP_LCL_CLSTR
PERF_MEM_SNOOP_PEER_CLSTR

Seems to me, we doing this is not only for cache level, it's more
important for users to know the variant cost for involving different
snooping logics.

Thanks,
Leo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-31 14:45    [W:0.132 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site