Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter: Add Generalized Hardware FPUsupport for AMD
From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput
Date: Tue Jun 30 2009 - 10:57:49 EST
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 18:50 +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 12:11 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > $./perf stat -e add -e multiply -e fpu-store -e fpu-empty -e fpu-busy -e x87 -e mmx-3dnow -e sse-sse2 -- ls -lR /usr/include/ > /dev/null
> > >
> > > Performance counter stats for 'ls -lR /usr/include/':
> > >
> > > 7335 add ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 8012 multiply ( 1.99x scaled)
> > > 5229 fpu-store ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 793097355 fpu-empty ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 182 fpu-busy ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 6 x87 ( 2.01x scaled)
> > > 4 mmx-3dnow ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 8933 sse-sse2 ( 2.00x scaled)
> > >
> > > 0.393548820 seconds time elapsed
> > >
> > > $./perf stat -e add -e multiply -e fpu-store -e fpu-empty -e fpu-busy -e x87 -e mmx-3dnow -e sse-sse2 -- /usr/bin/rhythmbox ~jaswinder/Music/singhiskinng.mp3
> > >
> > > Performance counter stats for '/usr/bin/rhythmbox /home/jaswinder/Music/singhiskinng.mp3':
> > >
> > > 19583739 add ( 2.01x scaled)
> > > 20856051 multiply ( 2.01x scaled)
> > > 18669503 fpu-store ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 25100224054 fpu-empty ( 1.99x scaled)
> > > 12540131 fpu-busy ( 1.99x scaled)
> > > 207228 x87 ( 1.99x scaled)
> > > 1768418 mmx-3dnow ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 42286702 sse-sse2 ( 2.01x scaled)
> > >
> > > 302.698647617 seconds time elapsed
> > >
> > > $./perf stat -e add -e multiply -e fpu-store -e fpu-empty -e fpu-busy -e x87 -e mmx-3dnow -e sse-sse2 -- /usr/bin/vlc ~jaswinder/Videos/Linus_Torvalds_interview_with_Charlie_Rose_Part_1.flv
> > >
> > > Performance counter stats for '/usr/bin/vlc /home/jaswinder/Videos/Linus_Torvalds_interview_with_Charlie_Rose_Part_1.flv':
> > >
> > > 6572682335 add ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 11131555181 multiply ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 1317520699 fpu-store ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 9089415134 fpu-empty ( 1.99x scaled)
> > > 2902772713 fpu-busy ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 26047 x87 ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 24850978532 mmx-3dnow ( 2.00x scaled)
> > > 262276117 sse-sse2 ( 2.01x scaled)
> > >
> > > 96.169312358 seconds time elapsed
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/linux/perf_counter.h | 17 +++++++++++++++
> > > kernel/perf_counter.c | 1 +
> > > tools/perf/util/parse-events.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 4 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c
> > > index b83474b..4417edf 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c
> > > @@ -372,6 +372,12 @@ static const u64 atom_hw_cache_event_ids
> > > },
> > > };
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Generalized hw fpu event table
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +static u64 __read_mostly hw_fpu_event_ids[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_MAX];
> >
> > ok, this looks genuinely useful, but there are some gaps. Where's
> > the divides?
>
> I was also surprised divide is not available for AMD. Thats why I did
> not included it. You are right it should be there.
>
In AMD FPU operations include add, multiple and store.
Can I use store as divide for AMD, samples I shown above seems like they
are divide.
> > Plus things like mmx-3dnow are AMD specific, sse-sse2
> > is x86 specific. We definitely want this general table, but the
> > events should be truly general.
> >
>
> mmx and sse are available for both Intel and AMD. Thats why I added both
> of them. Is it OK.
>
Is this looks :
enum perf_hw_fpu_id {
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_ADD = 0,
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_MULTIPLY = 1,
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_DIVIDE = 2,
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_EMPTY = 3,
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_STALL = 4,
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_X87 = 5,
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_MMX = 6,
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_SSE = 7,
PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_MAX, /* non-ABI */
> > Also, how would this look like on Intel, roughly?
> >
>
> Intel have almost all of them + divide.
>
> As you know I work from home and I do not have any Intel machine which
> supports PMU.
>
> Can you suggest your machine name so that I can prepare the FPU events
> list for your machine and you can verify it on your side.
>
For Nehalem it will look like :
static const u64 nehalem_hw_fpu_event_ids[] =
{
[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_ADD] = 0x01B1, /* UOPS_EXECUTED.PORT0 */
[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_MULTIPLY] = 0x0214, /* ARITH.MUL */
[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_DIVIDE] = 0x0114, /* ARITH.CYCLES_DIV_BUSY */
[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_EMPTY] = 0x0,
[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_STALL] = 0x60A2, /* RESOURCE_STALLS.FPCW|MXCSR*/
[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_X87] = 0x0110, /* FP_COMP_OPS_EXE.X87 */
[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_MMX] = 0x0210, /* FP_COMP_OPS_EXE.MMX */
[PERF_COUNT_HW_FPU_SSE] = 0x0410, /* FP_COMP_OPS_EXE.SSE_FP */
};
Is these looks OK to you. Can I resend the patch based on these.
Thanks,
--
JSR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/