lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 5/5] perf mem: Support mem_lvl_num in c2c command
From


On 4/8/2022 3:53 PM, Ali Saidi wrote:
> In addition to summarizing data encoded in mem_lvl also support data
> encoded in mem_lvl_num.
>
> Since other architectures don't seem to populate the mem_lvl_num field
> here there shouldn't be a change in functionality.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/mem-events.c | 11 +++++++----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c b/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> index ed0ab838bcc5..e5e405185498 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
> @@ -485,6 +485,7 @@ int c2c_decode_stats(struct c2c_stats *stats, struct mem_info *mi)
> u64 daddr = mi->daddr.addr;
> u64 op = data_src->mem_op;
> u64 lvl = data_src->mem_lvl;
> + u64 lnum = data_src->mem_lvl_num;
> u64 snoop = data_src->mem_snoop;
> u64 lock = data_src->mem_lock;
> u64 blk = data_src->mem_blk;
> @@ -527,16 +528,18 @@ do { \
> if (lvl & P(LVL, UNC)) stats->ld_uncache++;
> if (lvl & P(LVL, IO)) stats->ld_io++;
> if (lvl & P(LVL, LFB)) stats->ld_fbhit++;
> - if (lvl & P(LVL, L1 )) stats->ld_l1hit++;
> - if (lvl & P(LVL, L2 )) stats->ld_l2hit++;
> - if (lvl & P(LVL, L3 )) {
> + if (lvl & P(LVL, L1) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L1))
> + stats->ld_l1hit++;
> + if (lvl & P(LVL, L2) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L2))
> + stats->ld_l2hit++;
> + if (lvl & P(LVL, L3) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L3)) {
> if (snoop & P(SNOOP, HITM))
> HITM_INC(lcl_hitm);
> else
> stats->ld_llchit++;
> }
>
> - if (lvl & P(LVL, LOC_RAM)) {
> + if (lvl & P(LVL, LOC_RAM) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, RAM)) {

I think the PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_RAM only means it's a DRAM.
It doesn't contain the location information. To distinguish the local
and remote dram, X86 uses PERF_MEM_REMOTE_REMOTE.
Here the remote dram will be mistakenly calculated if you only check the
PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_RAM.

Actually, it looks like the mem_lvl_num fields supported in this patch
are also supported by the PERF_MEM_LVL*. Why don't you set both
PERF_MEM_LVLNUM_* and PERF_MEM_LVL* in your previous patch 4?
Then you can drop this patch.

Thanks,
Kan
> stats->lcl_dram++;
> if (snoop & P(SNOOP, HIT))
> stats->ld_shared++;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-20 21:03    [W:0.168 / U:1.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site