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:   Tue, 6 Jun 2023 15:18:59 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        yangyicong@hisilicon.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>,
        Jiucheng Xu <jiucheng.xu@amlogic.com>,
        Khuong Dinh <khuong@os.amperecomputing.com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Frank Li <Frank.li@nxp.com>,
        Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@kernel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Liang Kan <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/32] perf: Allow a PMU to have a parent
Message-ID: <20230606131859.GC905437@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230404134225.13408-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
 <20230404134225.13408-2-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
 <61f8e489-ae76-38d6-2da0-43cf3c17853d@huawei.com>
 <20230406111607.00007be5@Huawei.com>
 <20230406124040.GD392176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20230406174445.0000235c@Huawei.com>
 <20230406194938.GB405948@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ZH8vUKt+iCF4M70d@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZH8vUKt+iCF4M70d@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:06:24PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:49:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:44:45PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:40:40 +0200
> > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:16:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In the long run I agree it would be good.  Short term there are more instances of
> > > > > struct pmu that don't have parents than those that do (even after this series).
> > > > > We need to figure out what to do about those before adding checks on it being
> > > > > set.  
> > > > 
> > > > Right, I don't think you've touched *any* of the x86 PMUs for example,
> > > > and getting everybody that boots an x86 kernel a warning isn't going to
> > > > go over well :-)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It was tempting :) "Warning: Parentless PMU: try a different architecture."
> > 
> > Haha!
> > 
> > > I'd love some inputs on what the x86 PMU devices parents should be?
> > > CPU counters in general tend to just spin out of deep in the architecture code.
> > 
> > For the 'simple' ones I suppose we can use the CPU device.
> 
> Uh, *which* CPU device? Do we have a container device for all CPUs?

drivers/base/cpu.c:per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, cpu) for whatever the core
pmu is for that cpu ?

> > > My overall favorite is an l2 cache related PMU that is spun up in
> > > arch/arm/kernel/irq.c init_IRQ()
> 
> That's an artifact of the L2 cache controller driver getting initialized there;
> ideally we'd have a device for the L2 cache itself (which presumably should
> hang off an aggregate CPU device).

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/cache/indexM

has a struct device somewhere in
drivers/base/cacheinfo.c:ci_index_dev or somesuch.

> > Yeah, we're going to have a ton of them as well. Some of them are PCI
> > devices and have a clear parent, others, not so much :/
> 
> In a number of places the only thing we have is the PMU driver, and we don't
> have a driver (or device) for the HW block it's a part of. Largely that's
> interconnect PMUs; we could create container devices there.

Dont they have a PCI device? But yeah, some are going to be a wee bit
challenging.