Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:02:42 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] perf mem: Support mem_lvl_num in c2c command | From | "Liang, Kan" <> |
| |
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++;
| |