From: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
The mapping of perf_events generic hardware events to actual PMU events on
ARM PMUv3 may not always be correct. This is in particular true for the
PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS event. Although the mapping points to an
architected event, it may not always be available. This can be seen with a
simple:
$ perf stat -e branches sleep 0
Performance counter stats for 'sleep 0':
<not supported> branches
0.001401081 seconds time elapsed
Yet the hardware does have an event that could be used for branches.
Dynamically check for a supported hardware event which can be used for
PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS at mapping time.
And with that:
$ perf stat -e branches sleep 0
Performance counter stats for 'sleep 0':
166,739 branches
0.000832163 seconds time elapsed
Based-on: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YvunKCJHSXKz%2FkZB@FVFF77S0Q05N
Based-on-patch-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Newman <[email protected]>
---
v3->v4:
- splice Mark's patch with Stephane's problem statement
v2->v3:
- removed prints per Will's suggestion
[v3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[v2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
index dde06c0f97f3..ee63f8e719ea 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -45,7 +45,6 @@ static const unsigned armv8_pmuv3_perf_map[PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX] = {
[PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED,
[PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_L1D_CACHE,
[PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_L1D_CACHE_REFILL,
- [PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_PC_WRITE_RETIRED,
[PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_MIS_PRED,
[PERF_COUNT_HW_BUS_CYCLES] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BUS_CYCLES,
[PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_STALL_FRONTEND,
@@ -1048,6 +1047,28 @@ static void armv8pmu_reset(void *info)
armv8pmu_pmcr_write(pmcr);
}
+static int __armv8_pmuv3_map_event_id(struct arm_pmu *armpmu,
+ struct perf_event *event)
+{
+ if (event->attr.type == PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE &&
+ event->attr.config == PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS) {
+
+ if (test_bit(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_PC_WRITE_RETIRED,
+ armpmu->pmceid_bitmap))
+ return ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_PC_WRITE_RETIRED;
+
+ if (test_bit(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED,
+ armpmu->pmceid_bitmap))
+ return ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED;
+
+ return HW_OP_UNSUPPORTED;
+ }
+
+ return armpmu_map_event(event, &armv8_pmuv3_perf_map,
+ &armv8_pmuv3_perf_cache_map,
+ ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT);
+}
+
static int __armv8_pmuv3_map_event(struct perf_event *event,
const unsigned (*extra_event_map)
[PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX],
@@ -1059,9 +1080,7 @@ static int __armv8_pmuv3_map_event(struct perf_event *event,
int hw_event_id;
struct arm_pmu *armpmu = to_arm_pmu(event->pmu);
- hw_event_id = armpmu_map_event(event, &armv8_pmuv3_perf_map,
- &armv8_pmuv3_perf_cache_map,
- ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT);
+ hw_event_id = __armv8_pmuv3_map_event_id(armpmu, event);
/*
* CHAIN events only work when paired with an adjacent counter, and it
--
2.40.0.348.gf938b09366-goog
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:25:27PM +0200, Peter Newman wrote:
> From: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
>
> The mapping of perf_events generic hardware events to actual PMU events on
> ARM PMUv3 may not always be correct. This is in particular true for the
> PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS event. Although the mapping points to an
> architected event, it may not always be available. This can be seen with a
> simple:
>
> $ perf stat -e branches sleep 0
> Performance counter stats for 'sleep 0':
>
> <not supported> branches
>
> 0.001401081 seconds time elapsed
>
> Yet the hardware does have an event that could be used for branches.
>
> Dynamically check for a supported hardware event which can be used for
> PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS at mapping time.
>
> And with that:
>
> $ perf stat -e branches sleep 0
>
> Performance counter stats for 'sleep 0':
>
> 166,739 branches
>
> 0.000832163 seconds time elapsed
>
> Based-on: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YvunKCJHSXKz%2FkZB@FVFF77S0Q05N
> Based-on-patch-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Newman <[email protected]>
Thanks for reworking the patch; the patch itself and commit message look good
to me.
I'd like to keep my S-o-b here for the code itself; could we please make the
tags:
Co-Developed-by: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
Co-Developed-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Co-Developed-by: Peter Newman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Newman <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YvunKCJHSXKz%2FkZB@FVFF77S0Q05N
That follow the conventions documented in:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
Thanks,
Mark.
> ---
> v3->v4:
> - splice Mark's patch with Stephane's problem statement
> v2->v3:
> - removed prints per Will's suggestion
>
> [v3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> [v2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
> index dde06c0f97f3..ee63f8e719ea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
> @@ -45,7 +45,6 @@ static const unsigned armv8_pmuv3_perf_map[PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX] = {
> [PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED,
> [PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_L1D_CACHE,
> [PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_L1D_CACHE_REFILL,
> - [PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_PC_WRITE_RETIRED,
> [PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_MIS_PRED,
> [PERF_COUNT_HW_BUS_CYCLES] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BUS_CYCLES,
> [PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND] = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_STALL_FRONTEND,
> @@ -1048,6 +1047,28 @@ static void armv8pmu_reset(void *info)
> armv8pmu_pmcr_write(pmcr);
> }
>
> +static int __armv8_pmuv3_map_event_id(struct arm_pmu *armpmu,
> + struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + if (event->attr.type == PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE &&
> + event->attr.config == PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS) {
> +
> + if (test_bit(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_PC_WRITE_RETIRED,
> + armpmu->pmceid_bitmap))
> + return ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_PC_WRITE_RETIRED;
> +
> + if (test_bit(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED,
> + armpmu->pmceid_bitmap))
> + return ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED;
> +
> + return HW_OP_UNSUPPORTED;
> + }
> +
> + return armpmu_map_event(event, &armv8_pmuv3_perf_map,
> + &armv8_pmuv3_perf_cache_map,
> + ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT);
> +}
> +
> static int __armv8_pmuv3_map_event(struct perf_event *event,
> const unsigned (*extra_event_map)
> [PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX],
> @@ -1059,9 +1080,7 @@ static int __armv8_pmuv3_map_event(struct perf_event *event,
> int hw_event_id;
> struct arm_pmu *armpmu = to_arm_pmu(event->pmu);
>
> - hw_event_id = armpmu_map_event(event, &armv8_pmuv3_perf_map,
> - &armv8_pmuv3_perf_cache_map,
> - ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT);
> + hw_event_id = __armv8_pmuv3_map_event_id(armpmu, event);
>
> /*
> * CHAIN events only work when paired with an adjacent counter, and it
> --
> 2.40.0.348.gf938b09366-goog
>
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 9:24 AM Mark Rutland <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:25:27PM +0200, Peter Newman wrote:
> > Based-on: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YvunKCJHSXKz%2FkZB@FVFF77S0Q05N
> > Based-on-patch-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Newman <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks for reworking the patch; the patch itself and commit message look good
> to me.
>
> I'd like to keep my S-o-b here for the code itself; could we please make the
> tags:
>
> Co-Developed-by: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
> Co-Developed-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> Co-Developed-by: Peter Newman <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Newman <[email protected]>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YvunKCJHSXKz%2FkZB@FVFF77S0Q05N
>
> That follow the conventions documented in:
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
Yes, of course. I'll send an update shortly.
Thanks!
-Peter