Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:38:39 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] perf/hx_arm_ni: Support uncore ARM NI-700 PMU | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> |
| |
On 31/01/2024 10:07, Yang Jialong 杨佳龙 wrote: > > > 在 2024/1/31 15:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道: >> On 31/01/2024 08:08, JiaLong.Yang wrote: >>> This code is based on uncore PMUs arm_smmuv3_pmu and arm-cmn. >>> One ni-700 can have many clock domains. Each of them has only one PMU. >>> Here one PMU corresponds to one 'struct ni_pmu' instance. >>> PMU name will be ni_pmu_N_M, which N means different NI-700s and M means >>> different PMU in one NI-700. If only one NI-700 found in NI-700, name will >>> be ni_pmu_N. >>> Node interface event name will be xxni_N_eventname, such as >>> asni_0_rdreq_any. There are many kinds of type of nodes in one clock >>> domain. Also means that there are many kinds of that in one PMU. So we >>> distinguish them by xxni string. Besides, maybe there are many nodes >>> have same type. So we have number N in event name. >>> By ni_pmu_0_0/asni_0_rdreq_any/, we can pinpoint accurate bus traffic. >>> Example1: perf stat -a -e ni_pmu_0_0/asni_0_rdreq_any/,ni_pmu_0_0/cycles/ >>> EXample2: perf stat -a -e ni_pmu_0_0/asni,id=0,event=0x0/ >>> >>> Signed-off-by: JiaLong.Yang <jialong.yang@shingroup.cn> >>> --- >>> v1 --> v2: >>> 1. Submit MAINTANER Documentation/ files seperately. >> >> SEPARATE PATCHES, not patchsets. You have now checkpatch warnings >> because of this... > > ...OK. But the MAINTANER file changing should be given in which one > patches. > I will submit patch v3 after talking and your permission. > >> >>> 2. Delete some useless info printing. >>> 3. Change print from pr_xxx to dev_xxx. >>> 4. Fix more than 75 length log info. >>> 5. Fix dts attribute pccs-id. >>> 6. Fix generic name according to DT specification. >>> 7. Some indentation. >>> 8. Del of_match_ptr macro. >>> >>> drivers/perf/Kconfig | 11 + >>> drivers/perf/Makefile | 1 + >>> drivers/perf/hx_arm_ni.c | 1284 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 3 files changed, 1296 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 drivers/perf/hx_arm_ni.c >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/Kconfig b/drivers/perf/Kconfig >>> index ec6e0d9194a1..95ef8b13730f 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/perf/Kconfig >>> +++ b/drivers/perf/Kconfig >>> @@ -241,4 +241,15 @@ config CXL_PMU >>> >>> If unsure say 'm'. >>> >>> +config HX_ARM_NI_PMU >>> + tristate "HX ARM NI-700 PMU" >>> + depends on PPC_HX_C2000 && 64BIT >> >> 1. There is no PPC_HX_C2000. > > I have been used to using this macro. However this macro is not existed > in mainline. > I will replace it with ARM64. And del involved C code if OK. > > 64bit: > __ffs(unsigned long) and __fls(unsigned long) will be wrong in 32bit. I > pass a u64 argument.
One thing is where the code is supposed to run, second thing is compile testing.
Why do you use __ffs, not __ffs64 which takes u64 if you really want only 64bit argument? unsigned long != u64, so your code is not architecture independent. You claim you wrote it on purpose as non-architecture-independent, but then I claim it's a bug. We are supposed to write code which is portable, as much as possible, assuming it does not affect readability.
> struct ni_hw_perf_event will be big than limit. > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct ni_hw_perf_event) > offsetof(struct > hw_perf_event, target));
And why do you need to use any of such code? Please open one of hundreds of other drivers which work correctly on 32 and 64-bit platforms.
> >> 2. Nothing justified dependency on 64bit. Drop or explain. Your previous >> message did not provide real rationale. > > If ARM64, then drop.
..
..
>>> + /* Step2: Traverse all clock domains. */ >>> + for (cd_idx = 0; cd_idx < ni->cd_num; cd_idx++) { >>> + cd = cd_arrays[cd_idx]; >>> + >>> + num = ni_child_number(cd); >>> + dev_dbg(dev, "The %dth clock domain has %d child nodes:", cd_idx, num); >>> + >>> + /* Omit pmu node */ >>> + ni_pmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(ni_pmu, ev_src_nodes, num - 1), >>> + GFP_KERNEL); >>> + ni_pmu->ev_src_num = num - 1; >>> + >>> + if (!ni_pmu) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + num_idx = 0; >>> + for (nd_idx = 0; nd_idx < num; nd_idx++) { >>> + nd = ni_child_pointer(pbase, cd, nd_idx); >>> + >>> + node.base = nd; >>> + node.node_type = ni_node_node_type(nd); >>> + >>> + if (unlikely(ni_node_type(nd) == NI_PMU)) >>> + ni_pmu->pmu_node = node; >>> + else >>> + ni_pmu->ev_src_nodes[num_idx++] = node; >>> + dev_dbg(dev, " name: %s id: %d", ni_node_name[node.type], node.id); >>> + } >>> + >>> + ni_pmu->dev = dev; >>> + ni_pmu->ni = ni; >>> + ni->ni_pmus[cd_idx] = ni_pmu; >>> + } >>> + >>> + devm_kfree(dev, cd_arrays); >> >> Why? If it is not device-lifetime then allocate with usual way. >> > > No device-lifetime. > Will allocate in stack.
I was thinking about kzalloc. But if array is small, stack could be as well.
..
>> >>> + >>> +static const struct of_device_id ni_pmu_of_match[] = { >>> + { .compatible = "hx,c2000-arm-ni" }, >> >> Don't send undocumented compatibles. > > OK. Means I should send doc and code in one patch thread with more than > one patch?
Yes. Please open lore.kernel.org and look at any other submissions involving bindings or other type of ABI documentation (like sysfs).
Best regards, Krzysztof
| |