Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:30:00 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] perf test: Add pmu-event test for "Compat" and new event_field. | From | John Garry <> |
| |
On 28/07/2023 07:17, Jing Zhang wrote: > Add new event test for uncore system event which is used to verify the > functionality of "Compat" matching multiple identifiers and the new event > fields "EventIdCode" and "Type". >
Thanks for doing this. It looks ok. I just have a comment, below.
> Signed-off-by: Jing Zhang <renyu.zj@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > .../pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json | 8 ++++ > tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json b/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json > index c7e7528..879a0ae 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json > +++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json > @@ -12,5 +12,13 @@ > "EventName": "sys_ccn_pmu.read_cycles", > "Unit": "sys_ccn_pmu", > "Compat": "0x01" > + }, > + { > + "BriefDescription": "Counts total cache misses in first lookup result (high priority).", > + "Type": "0x05", > + "EventIdCode": "0x01", > + "EventName": "sys_cmn_pmu.hnf_cache_miss", > + "Unit": "arm_cmn", > + "Compat": "434*;436*;43c*;43a01" > } > ] > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c b/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c > index 1dff863b..e227dcd 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c > @@ -255,9 +255,24 @@ struct perf_pmu_test_pmu { > .matching_pmu = "uncore_sys_ccn_pmu", > }; > > +static const struct perf_pmu_test_event sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss = { > + .event = { > + .name = "sys_cmn_pmu.hnf_cache_miss", > + .event = "type=0x05,eventid=0x01", > + .desc = "Counts total cache misses in first lookup result (high priority). Unit: uncore_arm_cmn ", > + .topic = "uncore", > + .pmu = "uncore_arm_cmn", > + .compat = "434*;436*;43c*;43a01", > + }, > + .alias_str = "type=0x5,eventid=0x1", > + .alias_long_desc = "Counts total cache misses in first lookup result (high priority). Unit: uncore_arm_cmn ", > + .matching_pmu = "uncore_arm_cmn_0", > +}; > + > static const struct perf_pmu_test_event *sys_events[] = { > &sys_ddr_pmu_write_cycles, > &sys_ccn_pmu_read_cycles, > + &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss, > NULL > }; > > @@ -699,6 +714,46 @@ static int __test_uncore_pmu_event_aliases(struct perf_pmu_test_pmu *test_pmu) > &sys_ccn_pmu_read_cycles, > }, > }, > + { > + .pmu = { > + .name = (char *)"uncore_arm_cmn_0", > + .is_uncore = 1, > + .id = (char *)"43401", > + }, > + .aliases = { > + &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss, > + }, > + }, > + { > + .pmu = { > + .name = (char *)"uncore_arm_cmn_0", > + .is_uncore = 1, > + .id = (char *)"43602", > + }, > + .aliases = { > + &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss, > + }, > + }, > + { > + .pmu = { > + .name = (char *)"uncore_arm_cmn_1",
Shouldn't this match some perf_pmu_test_event entry with same matching_pmu member? But is perf_pmu_test_event.matching_pmu member ever used for any checking???
Thanks, John
> + .is_uncore = 1, > + .id = (char *)"43c03", > + }, > + .aliases = { > + &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss, > + }, > + }, > + { > + .pmu = { > + .name = (char *)"uncore_arm_cmn_1", > + .is_uncore = 1, > + .id = (char *)"43a01", > + }, > + .aliases = { > + &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss, > + }, > + } > }; > > /* Test that aliases generated are as expected */
| |