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

[Peter Zijlstra]

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?

> #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/