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;
From:   Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>
To:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <german.gomez@arm.com>,
        <leo.yan@linaro.org>, <acme@kernel.org>
CC:     <alisaidi@amazon.com>, <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        <Nick.Forrington@arm.com>, <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        <andrew.kilroy@arm.com>, <james.clark@arm.com>,
        <john.garry@huawei.com>, <jolsa@kernel.org>, <kjain@linux.ibm.com>,
        <lihuafei1@huawei.com>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
        <namhyung@kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>, <will@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/4] perf mem: Support mem_lvl_num in c2c command
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 18:33:22 +0000
Message-ID: <20220324183323.31414-4-alisaidi@amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220324183323.31414-1-alisaidi@amazon.com>
References: <20220324183323.31414-1-alisaidi@amazon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

In addition to summarizing data encoded in mem_lvl also support data
encoded in mem_lvl_num.

Since other architectures don't seem to populate the mem_lvl_num field
here there shouldn't be a change in functionality.

Signed-off-by: Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>
Tested-by: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>
---
 tools/perf/util/mem-events.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c b/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
index ed0ab838bcc5..e5e405185498 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/mem-events.c
@@ -485,6 +485,7 @@ int c2c_decode_stats(struct c2c_stats *stats, struct mem_info *mi)
 	u64 daddr  = mi->daddr.addr;
 	u64 op     = data_src->mem_op;
 	u64 lvl    = data_src->mem_lvl;
+	u64 lnum   = data_src->mem_lvl_num;
 	u64 snoop  = data_src->mem_snoop;
 	u64 lock   = data_src->mem_lock;
 	u64 blk    = data_src->mem_blk;
@@ -527,16 +528,18 @@ do {				\
 			if (lvl & P(LVL, UNC)) stats->ld_uncache++;
 			if (lvl & P(LVL, IO))  stats->ld_io++;
 			if (lvl & P(LVL, LFB)) stats->ld_fbhit++;
-			if (lvl & P(LVL, L1 )) stats->ld_l1hit++;
-			if (lvl & P(LVL, L2 )) stats->ld_l2hit++;
-			if (lvl & P(LVL, L3 )) {
+			if (lvl & P(LVL, L1) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L1))
+				stats->ld_l1hit++;
+			if (lvl & P(LVL, L2) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L2))
+				stats->ld_l2hit++;
+			if (lvl & P(LVL, L3) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, L3)) {
 				if (snoop & P(SNOOP, HITM))
 					HITM_INC(lcl_hitm);
 				else
 					stats->ld_llchit++;
 			}
 
-			if (lvl & P(LVL, LOC_RAM)) {
+			if (lvl & P(LVL, LOC_RAM) || lnum == P(LVLNUM, RAM)) {
 				stats->lcl_dram++;
 				if (snoop & P(SNOOP, HIT))
 					stats->ld_shared++;
-- 
2.32.0