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;
Message-ID: <2e91f218-e740-5b7d-fa8d-8fc43a6502a2@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:44:38 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 08/10] arm64/perf: Add struct brbe_regset helper
 functions
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230531040428.501523-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20230531040428.501523-9-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <ZIikv0bW1xGeLf6B@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZIikv0bW1xGeLf6B@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 6/13/23 22:47, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:34:26AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> The primary abstraction level for fetching branch records from BRBE HW has
>> been changed as 'struct brbe_regset', which contains storage for all three
>> BRBE registers i.e BRBSRC, BRBTGT, BRBINF. Whether branch record processing
>> happens in the task sched out path, or in the PMU IRQ handling path, these
>> registers need to be extracted from the HW. Afterwards both live and stored
>> sets need to be stitched together to create final branch records set. This
>> adds required helper functions for such operations.
>>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Tested-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/perf/arm_brbe.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 163 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_brbe.c b/drivers/perf/arm_brbe.c
>> index 484842d8cf3e..759db681d673 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_brbe.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_brbe.c
>> @@ -44,6 +44,169 @@ static void select_brbe_bank(int bank)
>>  	isb();
>>  }
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * This scans over BRBE register banks and captures individual branch reocrds
>> + * [BRBSRC, BRBTGT, BRBINF] into a pre-allocated 'struct brbe_regset' buffer,
>> + * until an invalid one gets encountered. The caller for this function needs
>> + * to ensure BRBE is an appropriate state before the records can be captured.
>> + */
>> +static int capture_brbe_regset(struct brbe_hw_attr *brbe_attr, struct brbe_regset *buf)
>> +{
>> +	int loop1_idx1, loop1_idx2, loop2_idx1, loop2_idx2;
>> +	int idx, count;
>> +
>> +	loop1_idx1 = BRBE_BANK0_IDX_MIN;
>> +	if (brbe_attr->brbe_nr <= BRBE_BANK_MAX_ENTRIES) {
>> +		loop1_idx2 = brbe_attr->brbe_nr - 1;
>> +		loop2_idx1 = BRBE_BANK1_IDX_MIN;
>> +		loop2_idx2 = BRBE_BANK0_IDX_MAX;
>> +	} else {
>> +		loop1_idx2 = BRBE_BANK0_IDX_MAX;
>> +		loop2_idx1 = BRBE_BANK1_IDX_MIN;
>> +		loop2_idx2 = brbe_attr->brbe_nr - 1;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	select_brbe_bank(BRBE_BANK_IDX_0);
>> +	for (idx = 0, count = loop1_idx1; count <= loop1_idx2; idx++, count++) {
>> +		buf[idx].brbinf = get_brbinf_reg(idx);
>> +		/*
>> +		 * There are no valid entries anymore on the buffer.
>> +		 * Abort the branch record processing to save some
>> +		 * cycles and also reduce the capture/process load
>> +		 * for the user space as well.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (brbe_invalid(buf[idx].brbinf))
>> +			return idx;
>> +
>> +		buf[idx].brbsrc = get_brbsrc_reg(idx);
>> +		buf[idx].brbtgt = get_brbtgt_reg(idx);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	select_brbe_bank(BRBE_BANK_IDX_1);
>> +	for (count = loop2_idx1; count <= loop2_idx2; idx++, count++) {
>> +		buf[idx].brbinf = get_brbinf_reg(idx);
>> +		/*
>> +		 * There are no valid entries anymore on the buffer.
>> +		 * Abort the branch record processing to save some
>> +		 * cycles and also reduce the capture/process load
>> +		 * for the user space as well.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (brbe_invalid(buf[idx].brbinf))
>> +			return idx;
>> +
>> +		buf[idx].brbsrc = get_brbsrc_reg(idx);
>> +		buf[idx].brbtgt = get_brbtgt_reg(idx);
>> +	}
>> +	return idx;
>> +}
> 
> As with __armv8pmu_branch_read(), the loop conditions are a bit hard to follow,
> and I believe that can be rewritten along the lines of the suggestion there.

I have changed both the places (in separate patches) with suggested loop structure.

> 
> Looking at this, we now have a couple of places that will try to read the
> registers for an individual record, so it probably makes sense to facotr that
> into a helper, e.g.

There are indeed two places inside capture_brbe_regset() - one for each bank.

> 
> | static bool __read_brbe_regset(struct brbe_regset *entry, int idx)
> | {
> | 	u64 brbinf = get_brbinf_reg(idx);
> | 
> | 	if (brbe_invalid(brbinf))
> | 		return false;
> | 	
> | 	entry->brbinf = brbinf;
> | 	entry->brbsrc = get_brbsrc_reg(idx);
> | 	entry->brbtgt = get_brbtgt_reg(idx);
> | 
> | 	return true;
> | }
> 
> ... which can be used here, e.g.
> 
> | /*
> |  * Capture all records before the first invalid record, and return the number
> |  * of records captured.
> |  */
> | static int capture_brbe_regset(struct brbe_hw_attr *brbe_attr, struct brbe_regset *buf)
> | {
> | 
> | 	int nr_entries = brbe_attr->brbe_nr;
> | 	int idx = 0;
> | 	
> | 	select_brbe_bank(BRBE_BANK_IDX_0);
> | 	while (idx < nr_entries && IDX < BRBE_BANK0_IDX_MAX) {
> | 		if (__read_brbe_regset(&buf[idx], idx))

It should test !_read_brbe_regset(&buf[idx], idx)) instead as the error
case returns false.

> | 			return idx;
> | 	}
> | 
> | 	select_brbe_bank(BRBE_BANK_IDX_1);
> | 	while (idx < nr_entries && IDX < BRBE_BANK1_IDX_MAX) {
> | 		if (__read_brbe_regset(&buf[idx], idx))
> | 			return idx;

Ditto.

> | 	}
> | 
> | 	return idx;
> | }

Will factor out a new helper __read_brbe_regset() from capture_brbe_regset().

> 
> ... and could be used to implement capture_branch_entry() in the patch before
> this.
> 
>> +static inline void copy_brbe_regset(struct brbe_regset *src, int src_idx,
>> +				    struct brbe_regset *dst, int dst_idx)
>> +{
>> +	dst[dst_idx].brbinf = src[src_idx].brbinf;
>> +	dst[dst_idx].brbsrc = src[src_idx].brbsrc;
>> +	dst[dst_idx].brbtgt = src[src_idx].brbtgt;
>> +}
> 
> C can do struct assignment, so this is the same as:
> 
> | static inline void copy_brbe_regset(struct brbe_regset *src, int src_idx,
> | 				    struct brbe_regset *dst, int dst_idx)
> | {
> | 	dst[dst_idx] = src[src_idx];
> | }

Agreed.

> 
> ... and given that, it would be simpler and clearer to have that directly in
> the caller, so I don't think we need this helper function.

Agreed, will drop copy_brbe_regset().

> 
>> +/*
>> + * This function concatenates branch records from stored and live buffer
>> + * up to maximum nr_max records and the stored buffer holds the resultant
>> + * buffer. The concatenated buffer contains all the branch records from
>> + * the live buffer but might contain some from stored buffer considering
>> + * the maximum combined length does not exceed 'nr_max'.
>> + *
>> + *	Stored records	Live records
>> + *	------------------------------------------------^
>> + *	|	S0	|	L0	|	Newest	|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	S1	|	L1	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	S2	|	L2	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	S3	|	L3	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	S4	|	L4	|		nr_max
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|		|	L5	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|		|	L6	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|		|	L7	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|		|		|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|		|		|	Oldest	|
>> + *	------------------------------------------------V
>> + *
>> + *
>> + * S0 is the newest in the stored records, where as L7 is the oldest in
>> + * the live reocords. Unless the live buffer is detetcted as being full

Fixed these typos ^^^					^^^

>> + * thus potentially dropping off some older records, L7 and S0 records
>> + * are contiguous in time for a user task context. The stitched buffer
>> + * here represents maximum possible branch records, contiguous in time.
>> + *
>> + *	Stored records  Live records
>> + *	------------------------------------------------^
>> + *	|	L0	|	L0	|	Newest	|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	L0	|	L1	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	L2	|	L2	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	L3	|	L3	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	L4	|	L4	|	      nr_max
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	L5	|	L5	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	L6	|	L6	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	L7	|	L7	|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	S0	|		|		|
>> + *	---------------------------------		|
>> + *	|	S1	|		|    Oldest	|
>> + *	------------------------------------------------V
>> + *	|	S2	| <----|
>> + *	-----------------      |
>> + *	|	S3	| <----| Dropped off after nr_max
>> + *	-----------------      |
>> + *	|	S4	| <----|
>> + *	-----------------
>> + */
>> +static int stitch_stored_live_entries(struct brbe_regset *stored,
>> +				      struct brbe_regset *live,
>> +				      int nr_stored, int nr_live,
>> +				      int nr_max)
>> +{
>> +	int nr_total, nr_excess, nr_last, i;
>> +
>> +	nr_total = nr_stored + nr_live;
>> +	nr_excess = nr_total - nr_max;
>> +
>> +	/* Stored branch records in stitched buffer */
>> +	if (nr_live == nr_max)
>> +		nr_stored = 0;
>> +	else if (nr_excess > 0)
>> +		nr_stored -= nr_excess;
>> +
>> +	/* Stitched buffer branch records length */
>> +	if (nr_total > nr_max)
>> +		nr_last = nr_max;
>> +	else
>> +		nr_last = nr_total;
>> +
>> +	/* Move stored branch records */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < nr_stored; i++)
>> +		copy_brbe_regset(stored, i, stored, nr_last - nr_stored - 1 + i);
>> +
>> +	/* Copy live branch records */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < nr_live; i++)
>> +		copy_brbe_regset(live, i, stored, i);
>> +
>> +	return nr_last;
>> +}
> 
> I think this can be written more simply as something like:
> 
> static int stitch_stored_live_entries(struct brbe_regset *stored,
> 				      struct brbe_regset *live,
> 				      int nr_stored, int nr_live,
> 				      int nr_max)
> {	
> 	int nr_move = max(nr_stored, nr_max - nr_live);

Should this compare be min() instead ? As all nr_live entries need to
be moved starting store[0], there will be (nr_max - nr_live) entries
left for initial stored entries movement, irrespective of how many of
stored entries are actually present. Hence (nr_max - nr_live) acts as
a cap on nr_stored value for this initial movement. But if nr_stored
is smaller than  nr_max - nr_live, it gets picked up.

> 
> 	/* Move the tail of the buffer to make room for the new entries */
> 	memmove(&stored[nr_live], &stored[0], nr_move * sizeof(*stored));
> 
> 	/* Copy the new entries into the head of the buffer */
> 	memcpy(stored[0], &live[0], nr_live * sizeof(*stored));
> 
> 	/* Return the number of entries in the stitched buffer */
> 	return min(nr_live + nr_stored, nr_max);
> }

Otherwise this makes sense and simpler, will rework.

> 
> ... or if we could save this oldest-first, we could make it a circular buffer
> and avoid moving older entries.

Storing the youngest entries first is aligned with how perf branch
stack sampling stores the entries in struct perf_sample_data which
gets copied 'as is' from cpuc->branches->branch_stack. Hence, just
keeping all these buffer in the same age order (youngest first in
index 0) really makes sense. Although the above rework seems fine.