Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] perf cs_etm: Record ts_source in AUXTRACE_INFO for ETMv4 and ETE

From: Suzuki K Poulose
Date: Thu Jan 19 2023 - 10:57:08 EST


On 19/01/2023 15:43, James Clark wrote:
From: German Gomez <german.gomez@xxxxxxx>

Read the value of ts_source exposed by the driver and store it in the
ETMv4 and ETE header. If the interface doesn't exist (such as in older
Kernels), defaults to a safe value of -1.

Super minor nits feel free to ignore.


Signed-off-by: German Gomez <german.gomez@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx>
---
tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/perf/util/cs-etm-base.c | 2 ++
tools/perf/util/cs-etm.h | 2 ++
3 files changed, 52 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
index b526ffe550a5..481e170cd3f1 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/cs-etm.c
@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static const char * const metadata_etmv4_ro[] = {
[CS_ETMV4_TRCIDR2] = "trcidr/trcidr2",
[CS_ETMV4_TRCIDR8] = "trcidr/trcidr8",
[CS_ETMV4_TRCAUTHSTATUS] = "mgmt/trcauthstatus",
+ [CS_ETMV4_TS_SOURCE] = "ts_source",
};
static const char * const metadata_ete_ro[] = {
@@ -62,6 +63,7 @@ static const char * const metadata_ete_ro[] = {
[CS_ETE_TRCIDR8] = "trcidr/trcidr8",
[CS_ETE_TRCAUTHSTATUS] = "mgmt/trcauthstatus",
[CS_ETE_TRCDEVARCH] = "mgmt/trcdevarch",
+ [CS_ETE_TS_SOURCE] = "ts_source",
};
static bool cs_etm_is_etmv4(struct auxtrace_record *itr, int cpu);
@@ -613,6 +615,32 @@ static int cs_etm_get_ro(struct perf_pmu *pmu, int cpu, const char *path)
return val;
}
+static int cs_etm_get_ro_signed(struct perf_pmu *pmu, int cpu, const char *path)

minor nit: This doesn't necessarily care if it is RO ?
Also, does it make sense to rename to include cpu relation :

say, cs_etm_pmu_cpu_get_signed() ?

+{
+ char pmu_path[PATH_MAX];
+ int scan;
+ int val = 0;
+
+ /* Get RO metadata from sysfs */
+ snprintf(pmu_path, PATH_MAX, "cpu%d/%s", cpu, path);
+
+ scan = perf_pmu__scan_file(pmu, pmu_path, "%d", &val);
+ if (scan != 1)
+ pr_err("%s: error reading: %s\n", __func__, pmu_path);
+
+ return val;
+}
+
+static bool cs_etm_pmu_path_exists(struct perf_pmu *pmu, int cpu, const char *path)

nit: cs_etm_pmu_cpu_path_exists() ? To make the "cpu" relation explicit ?

Otherwise looks good to me.

Suzuki