Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 5/6] x86/intel_rdt: Use perf infrastructure for
 measurements
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com,
        gavin.hindman@intel.com, jithu.joseph@intel.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1534450299.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com>
 <30b32ebd826023ab88f3ab3122e4c414ea532722.1534450299.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com>
 <20180906141524.GF24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <40894b6f-c421-32fb-39c3-3dddbed5aa91@intel.com>
 <20180906194441.GA9358@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Message-ID: <2465aa4d-fa84-cb0c-082a-15240472b349@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:05:05 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180906194441.GA9358@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Peter,

On 9/6/2018 12:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 12:21:59PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> If you do have suggestions on how I can improve the implementation while
>> maintaining (or improving) the accuracy of the measurements I would
>> greatly appreciate it.
> 
> You can reduce the code duplication by using __always_inline functions
> with const function arguments.
> 

Could you please elaborate? I am unable to see how that would help in,
for example:

          if (need_l2) {
                   rdpmcl(l2_hit_pmcnum, l2_hits_after);
                   rdpmcl(l2_miss_pmcnum, l2_miss_after);
          }
          if (need_l3) {
                   rdpmcl(l3_hit_pmcnum, l3_hits_after);
                   rdpmcl(l3_miss_pmcnum, l3_miss_after);
          }

Two issues with the above are:
- the measurements captured in l2_hits_after and l2_miss_after would
include the hits/misses associated with the "if (need_l2)" test
- the measurements captured in l3_hits_after and l3_miss_after would
include the hits/misses associated with both the "if (need_l2)" and "if
(need_l3)" tests.

When I separate the above into the two functions it just becomes either:
                   rdpmcl(l2_hit_pmcnum, l2_hits_after);
                   rdpmcl(l2_miss_pmcnum, l2_miss_after);
or:
                   rdpmcl(l3_hit_pmcnum, l3_hits_after);
                   rdpmcl(l3_miss_pmcnum, l3_miss_after);

Reinette