Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:49:59 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] perf cs_etm: Record ts_source in AUXTRACE_INFO for ETMv4 and ETE | From | James Clark <> |
| |
On 19/01/2023 15:56, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > On 19/01/2023 15:43, James Clark wrote: >> From: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com> >> >> Read the value of ts_source exposed by the driver and store it in the >> ETMv4 and ETE header. If the interface doesn't exist (such as in older >> Kernels), defaults to a safe value of -1. > > Super minor nits feel free to ignore. > >> >> Signed-off-by: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com> >> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com> >> --- >> tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tools/perf/util/cs-etm-base.c | 2 ++ >> tools/perf/util/cs-etm.h | 2 ++ >> 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c >> b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c >> index b526ffe550a5..481e170cd3f1 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c >> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static const char * const metadata_etmv4_ro[] = { >> [CS_ETMV4_TRCIDR2] = "trcidr/trcidr2", >> [CS_ETMV4_TRCIDR8] = "trcidr/trcidr8", >> [CS_ETMV4_TRCAUTHSTATUS] = "mgmt/trcauthstatus", >> + [CS_ETMV4_TS_SOURCE] = "ts_source", >> }; >> static const char * const metadata_ete_ro[] = { >> @@ -62,6 +63,7 @@ static const char * const metadata_ete_ro[] = { >> [CS_ETE_TRCIDR8] = "trcidr/trcidr8", >> [CS_ETE_TRCAUTHSTATUS] = "mgmt/trcauthstatus", >> [CS_ETE_TRCDEVARCH] = "mgmt/trcdevarch", >> + [CS_ETE_TS_SOURCE] = "ts_source", >> }; >> static bool cs_etm_is_etmv4(struct auxtrace_record *itr, int cpu); >> @@ -613,6 +615,32 @@ static int cs_etm_get_ro(struct perf_pmu *pmu, >> int cpu, const char *path) >> return val; >> } >> +static int cs_etm_get_ro_signed(struct perf_pmu *pmu, int cpu, >> const char *path) > > minor nit: This doesn't necessarily care if it is RO ? > Also, does it make sense to rename to include cpu relation : > > say, cs_etm_pmu_cpu_get_signed() ? > >> +{ >> + char pmu_path[PATH_MAX]; >> + int scan; >> + int val = 0; >> + >> + /* Get RO metadata from sysfs */ >> + snprintf(pmu_path, PATH_MAX, "cpu%d/%s", cpu, path); >> + >> + scan = perf_pmu__scan_file(pmu, pmu_path, "%d", &val); >> + if (scan != 1) >> + pr_err("%s: error reading: %s\n", __func__, pmu_path); >> + >> + return val; >> +} >> + >> +static bool cs_etm_pmu_path_exists(struct perf_pmu *pmu, int cpu, >> const char *path) > > nit: cs_etm_pmu_cpu_path_exists() ? To make the "cpu" relation explicit ? >
For both of these points, I think it was just trying to be consistent with what is already there.
There is already cs_etm_is_etmv4() and cs_etm_get_ro() which don't mention the cpu part, and also the metadata_etmv4_ro variable which has _ro. You're right that it doesn't matter that they're read only, but at the moment everything is so it's probably easiest to leave it for now rather than go and update everything.
> Otherwise looks good to me. > > Suzuki >
Thanks for the review.
| |