Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 27 Feb 2022 21:54:44 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>
Cc:     german.gomez@arm.com, acme@kernel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, andrew.kilroy@arm.com,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, james.clark@arm.com,
        john.garry@huawei.com, jolsa@redhat.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf arm-spe: Parse more SPE fields and store source
Message-ID: <20220227135444.GB107053@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <9266bfb6-341c-1d9c-e96f-c9f856a5ffb6@arm.com>
 <20220222192943.20137-1-alisaidi@amazon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220222192943.20137-1-alisaidi@amazon.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 07:29:43PM +0000, Ali Saidi wrote:

[...]

> >So I am just wandering if we can set the field
> >sample::data_src::mem_lock for atomic operations, like:
> >
> >    data_src.mem_op   = PERF_MEM_OP_LOAD;
> >    data_src.mem_lock = PERF_MEM_LOCK_ATOMIC;
> >
> >The field "mem_lock" is only two bits, we can consider to extend the
> >structure with an extra filed "mem_lock_ext" if it cannot meet our
> >requirement.
> 
> These are for the LOCK instruction on x86. I don't know that we want to
> overload the meaning here. Minimally there is value in differentiating
> exclusives vs atomics.

Good point.  Can we consider to add new filed data_src.atomic with
below types?

    PERF_MEM_ATOMIC_INST  -> Atomic operations
    PERF_MEM_ATOMIC_EXCL  -> Load-Exclusive/Store-Exclusive
    PERF_MEM_ATOMIC_ACQUIRE_RELEASE  ->Load-Acquire/Store-Release

Thanks,
Leo