Re: [PATCH 1/4] perf: Add memory load/store events generic code

From: Lin Ming
Date: Wed Jul 06 2011 - 21:55:43 EST


On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 21:51 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 13:53 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
>
> > Do you mean to use the "impossible combinations" to express the inverse?
>
> Nah, impossible would be things like having neither LOAD nor STORE set.
>
> > MEM_STORE_DCU_MISS as: store-l2-l3-dram
> > MEM_STORE_STLB_MISS as: store-itlb-dtlb
> >
> > How about below code?
>
> Right, something like that. Robert can the IBS data source data be
> mapped onto this as well?
>
> > #define PERF_MEM_LOAD (1ULL << 0)
> > #define PERF_MEM_STORE (1ULL << 1)
> > #define PERF_MEM_ATOMIC (1ULL << 2)
> > #define PERF_MEM_L1 (1ULL << 3)
> > #define PERF_MEM_L2 (1ULL << 4)
> > #define PERF_MEM_L3 (1ULL << 5)
> > #define PERF_MEM_RAM (1ULL << 6)
> > #define PERF_MEM_UNKNOWN (1ULL << 7)
> > #define PERF_MEM_IO (1ULL << 8)
> > #define PERF_MEM_UNCACHED (1ULL << 9)
> > #define PERF_MEM_RESERVED (1ULL << 10)
> > #define PERF_MEM_LOCAL (1ULL << 11)
> > #define PERF_MEM_REMOTE (1ULL << 12)
> > #define PERF_MEM_SNOOP (1ULL << 13)
> > #define PERF_MEM_MODIFIED (1ULL << 14)
> > #define PERF_MEM_EXCLUSIVE (1ULL << 15)
> > #define PERF_MEM_SHARED (1ULL << 16)
> > #define PERF_MEM_INVALID (1ULL << 17)
>
> > #define PERF_MEM_ITLB (1ULL << 18)
> > #define PERF_MEM_DTLB (1ULL << 19)
> > #define PERF_MEM_STLB (1ULL << 20)
>
> Are these TLB hit or miss?

I meant hit, but that's not correct.
How about more complete definition as below?

#define PERF_MEM_L1D_HIT
#define PERF_MEM_L1D_MISS
#define PERF_MEM_L1I_HIT
#define PERF_MEM_L1I_MISS
#define PERF_MEM_L2_HIT
#define PERF_MEM_L2_MISS
#define PERF_MEM_L3_HIT
#define PERF_MEM_L3_MISS

#define PERF_MEM_ITLB_HIT
#define PERF_MEM_ITLB_MISS
#define PERF_MEM_DTLB_HIT
#define PERF_MEM_DTLB_MISS
#define PERF_MEM_STLB_HIT
#define PERF_MEM_STLB_MISS

#define PERF_MEM_STORE_L1D_HIT \
(PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_L1D_HIT)

#define PERF_MEM_STORE_L1D_MISS \
(PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_L1D_MISS)

#define PERF_MEM_STORE_STLB_HIT \
(PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_STLB_HIT)

#define PERF_MEM_STORE_STLB_MISS \
(PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_STLB_MISS)

#define PERF_MEM_STORE_ATOMIC \
(PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_ATOMIC)

#define PERF_MEM_LOAD_STLB_HIT \
(PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_STLB_HIT)

#define PERF_MEM_LOAD_STLB_MISS \
(PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_STLB_MISS)

#define PERF_MEM_LOAD_ATOMIC \
(PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_ATOMIC)

Lin Ming

>
> > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_L1D_HIT \
> > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_L1)
> >
> > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_L1D_MISS \
> > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_L2 | PERF_MEM_L3 | PERF_MEM_RAM)
> >
> > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_STLB_HIT \
> > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_STLB)
> >
> > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_STLB_MISS \
> > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_ITLB | PERF_MEM_DTLB)
>
> Going by the definition in table 30-22 neither of these seem correct, a
> STLB_HIT was defined as DTLB|STLB whereas a STLB_MISS was missing both
> (resulting in a full page-table walk I presume).
>
> > #define PERF_MEM_STORE_ATOMIC \
> > (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_ATOMIC)
> >
> > #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_STLB_HIT \
> > (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_STLB)
> >
> > #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_STLB_MISS \
> > (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_ITLB | PERF_MEM_DTLB)
>
> idem
>
> > #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_ATOMIC \
> > (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_ATOMIC)
> >
>


--
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/