On 11/06/18 15:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 02:54:16PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 08/06/18 15:46, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 06/06/2018 07:01 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:55:56AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
- value |= 0xffffffff00000000ULL;
+ if (!armv8pmu_event_is_64bit(event))
+ value |= 0xffffffff00000000ULL;
write_sysreg(value, pmccntr_el0);
- } else if (armv8pmu_select_counter(idx) == idx)
- write_sysreg(value, pmxevcntr_el0);
+ } else
+ armv8pmu_write_hw_counter(event, value);
}
+static inline void armv8pmu_write_event_type(struct perf_event *event)
+{
+ struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
+ int idx = hwc->idx;
+
+ /*
+ * For chained events, write the the low counter event type
+ * followed by the high counter. The high counter is programmed
+ * with CHAIN event code with filters set to count at all ELs.
+ */
+ if (armv8pmu_event_is_chained(event)) {
+ u32 chain_evt = ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CHAIN |
+ ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2;
+
+ armv8pmu_write_evtype(idx - 1, hwc->config_base);
+ isb();
+ armv8pmu_write_evtype(idx, chain_evt);
The ISB isn't necessary here, AFAICT. We only do this while the PMU is
disabled; no?
You're right. I was just following the ARM ARM.
Taking another look, it is not clear about the semantics of "pmu->enable()"
and pmu->disable() callbacks.
I was talking about pmu::{pmu_disable,pmu_enable}(), so I'm not sure I
follow how arm_pmu::{enable,disable}() are relevant here.>
The arm_pmu::{enable,disable}() callbacks enable or disable individual
counters. For example, leaving unused counters disabled may save power,
even if the PMU as a whole is enabled.
Ah, I mistook cpu_pmu->enable/disable for the core pmu ops. My bad.
Sorry about the noise.
Suzuki
