Re: [PATCH 04/14] perf, x86: Basic Haswell LBR call stack support

From: Yan, Zheng
Date: Wed Feb 05 2014 - 20:53:07 EST

Next message: Chanwoo Choi: "Re: [PATCH 07/18] mfd: max14577: Rename and add MAX14577 symbols toprepare for max77836"
Previous message: Calvin Owens: "[PATCH] ieee80211: Print human-readable disassoc/deauth reason codes"
In reply to: Stephane Eranian: "Re: [PATCH 04/14] perf, x86: Basic Haswell LBR call stack support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 02/05/2014 11:40 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> When the call stack feature is enabled, the LBR stack will capture
>> unfiltered call data normally, but as return instructions are executed,
>> the last captured branch record is flushed from the on-chip registers
>> in a last-in first-out (LIFO) manner. Thus, branch information relative
>> to leaf functions will not be captured, while preserving the call stack
>> information of the main line execution path.
>>
> This is a generic description of the LBR call stack feature. It does not
> describe what the patch actually does which is implement the basic
> internal infrastructure for CALL_STACK mode using LBR callstack.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h | 7 ++-
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c | 2 +-
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 3 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
>> index 80b8e83..3ef4b79 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
>> @@ -460,7 +460,10 @@ struct x86_pmu {
>> };
>>
>> enum {
>> - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_SELECT_MAP_SIZE = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX_SHIFT,
>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CALL_STACK_SHIFT = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX_SHIFT,
>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_SELECT_MAP_SIZE,
>> +
>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CALL_STACK = 1U << PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CALL_STACK_SHIFT,
>> };
>>
>> #define x86_add_quirk(func_) \
>> @@ -697,6 +700,8 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_init_atom(void);
>>
>> void intel_pmu_lbr_init_snb(void);
>>
>> +void intel_pmu_lbr_init_hsw(void);
>> +
>> int intel_pmu_setup_lbr_filter(struct perf_event *event);
>>
>> int p4_pmu_init(void);
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> index 4325bae..84a1c09 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> @@ -2494,7 +2494,7 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
>> memcpy(hw_cache_event_ids, snb_hw_cache_event_ids, sizeof(hw_cache_event_ids));
>> memcpy(hw_cache_extra_regs, snb_hw_cache_extra_regs, sizeof(hw_cache_extra_regs));
>>
>> - intel_pmu_lbr_init_snb();
>> + intel_pmu_lbr_init_hsw();
>>
>> x86_pmu.event_constraints = intel_hsw_event_constraints;
>> x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_hsw_pebs_event_constraints;
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c
>> index 7ff2a99..bdd8758 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c
>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ static enum {
>> #define LBR_IND_JMP_BIT 6 /* do not capture indirect jumps */
>> #define LBR_REL_JMP_BIT 7 /* do not capture relative jumps */
>> #define LBR_FAR_BIT 8 /* do not capture far branches */
>> +#define LBR_CALL_STACK_BIT 9 /* enable call stack */
>>
>> #define LBR_KERNEL (1 << LBR_KERNEL_BIT)
>> #define LBR_USER (1 << LBR_USER_BIT)
>> @@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ static enum {
>> #define LBR_REL_JMP (1 << LBR_REL_JMP_BIT)
>> #define LBR_IND_JMP (1 << LBR_IND_JMP_BIT)
>> #define LBR_FAR (1 << LBR_FAR_BIT)
>> +#define LBR_CALL_STACK (1 << LBR_CALL_STACK_BIT)
>>
>> #define LBR_PLM (LBR_KERNEL | LBR_USER)
>>
>> @@ -74,24 +76,25 @@ static enum {
>> * x86control flow changes include branches, interrupts, traps, faults
>> */
>> enum {
>> - X86_BR_NONE = 0, /* unknown */
>> -
>> - X86_BR_USER = 1 << 0, /* branch target is user */
>> - X86_BR_KERNEL = 1 << 1, /* branch target is kernel */
>> -
>> - X86_BR_CALL = 1 << 2, /* call */
>> - X86_BR_RET = 1 << 3, /* return */
>> - X86_BR_SYSCALL = 1 << 4, /* syscall */
>> - X86_BR_SYSRET = 1 << 5, /* syscall return */
>> - X86_BR_INT = 1 << 6, /* sw interrupt */
>> - X86_BR_IRET = 1 << 7, /* return from interrupt */
>> - X86_BR_JCC = 1 << 8, /* conditional */
>> - X86_BR_JMP = 1 << 9, /* jump */
>> - X86_BR_IRQ = 1 << 10,/* hw interrupt or trap or fault */
>> - X86_BR_IND_CALL = 1 << 11,/* indirect calls */
>> - X86_BR_ABORT = 1 << 12,/* transaction abort */
>> - X86_BR_IN_TX = 1 << 13,/* in transaction */
>> - X86_BR_NO_TX = 1 << 14,/* not in transaction */
>> + X86_BR_NONE = 0, /* unknown */
>> +
>> + X86_BR_USER = 1 << 0, /* branch target is user */
>> + X86_BR_KERNEL = 1 << 1, /* branch target is kernel */
>> +
>> + X86_BR_CALL = 1 << 2, /* call */
>> + X86_BR_RET = 1 << 3, /* return */
>> + X86_BR_SYSCALL = 1 << 4, /* syscall */
>> + X86_BR_SYSRET = 1 << 5, /* syscall return */
>> + X86_BR_INT = 1 << 6, /* sw interrupt */
>> + X86_BR_IRET = 1 << 7, /* return from interrupt */
>> + X86_BR_JCC = 1 << 8, /* conditional */
>> + X86_BR_JMP = 1 << 9, /* jump */
>> + X86_BR_IRQ = 1 << 10,/* hw interrupt or trap or fault */
>> + X86_BR_IND_CALL = 1 << 11,/* indirect calls */
>> + X86_BR_ABORT = 1 << 12,/* transaction abort */
>> + X86_BR_IN_TX = 1 << 13,/* in transaction */
>> + X86_BR_NO_TX = 1 << 14,/* not in transaction */
>> + X86_BR_CALL_STACK = 1 << 15,/* call stack */
>> };
>>
>> #define X86_BR_PLM (X86_BR_USER | X86_BR_KERNEL)
>> @@ -135,7 +138,14 @@ static void __intel_pmu_lbr_enable(void)
>> wrmsrl(MSR_LBR_SELECT, cpuc->lbr_sel->config);
>>
>> rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, debugctl);
>> - debugctl |= (DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR | DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI);
>> + debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR;
>> + /*
>> + * LBR callstack does not work well with FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI.
>> + * If FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI is set, PMI near call/return instructions
>> + * may cause superfluous increase/decrease of LBR_TOS.
>> + */
> Is that a bug or a feature?

hardware bug of haswell

>
> That prevent any use of the call-stack mode in the kernel because by the
> time you get to perf_events code, the stack will have been overwritten. you
> can get by if you are only interested in user level execution, the LBR priv
> level filtering will cause a freeze, though with some skid. I assume you are
> limiting this feature to user priv level by enforcing that users pass the
> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER flag.

yes, this feature is limited to user priv level

>
>
>> + if (!cpuc->lbr_sel || !(cpuc->lbr_sel->config & LBR_CALL_STACK))
>> + debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI;
>> wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, debugctl);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -354,7 +364,7 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_read(void)
>> * - in case there is no HW filter
>> * - in case the HW filter has errata or limitations
>> */
>> -static void intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter(struct perf_event *event)
>> +static int intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter(struct perf_event *event)
>> {
>> u64 br_type = event->attr.branch_sample_type;
>> int mask = 0;
>> @@ -388,11 +398,21 @@ static void intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter(struct perf_event *event)
>> if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_NO_TX)
>> mask |= X86_BR_NO_TX;
>>
>> + if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CALL_STACK) {
>> + if (!x86_pmu.lbr_sel_map)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> I am not sure checking lbr_sel_map here is enough. You need to
> check if the CALL_STACK entry is populated, meaning the HW feature
> exists.
>
>> + if (mask & ~(X86_BR_USER | X86_BR_KERNEL))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + mask |= X86_BR_CALL | X86_BR_IND_CALL | X86_BR_RET |
>> + X86_BR_CALL_STACK;
>
> Why have BR_RET here?

the doc says NEAR_REL_CALL, NEAR-IND_CALL and NEAR_RET must be cleared when LBR callstack is enabled.

Regards
Yan, Zheng

>
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * stash actual user request into reg, it may
>> * be used by fixup code for some CPU
>> */
>> event->hw.branch_reg.reg = mask;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -421,8 +441,11 @@ static int intel_pmu_setup_hw_lbr_filter(struct perf_event *event)
>> reg = &event->hw.branch_reg;
>> reg->idx = EXTRA_REG_LBR;
>>
>> - /* LBR_SELECT operates in suppress mode so invert mask */
>> - reg->config = ~mask & x86_pmu.lbr_sel_mask;
>> + /*
>> + * the first 8 bits (LBR_SEL_MASK) in LBR_SELECT operates
>> + * in suppress mode so invert mask
>> + */
>> + reg->config = mask ^ x86_pmu.lbr_sel_mask;
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -440,7 +463,9 @@ int intel_pmu_setup_lbr_filter(struct perf_event *event)
>> /*
>> * setup SW LBR filter
>> */
>> - intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter(event);
>> + ret = intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter(event);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>>
>> /*
>> * setup HW LBR filter, if any
>> @@ -695,6 +720,19 @@ static const int snb_lbr_sel_map[PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_SELECT_MAP_SIZE] = {
>> [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL_SHIFT] = LBR_IND_CALL,
>> };
>>
>> +static const int hsw_lbr_sel_map[PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_SELECT_MAP_SIZE] = {
>> + [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_SHIFT] = LBR_ANY,
>> + [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER_SHIFT] = LBR_USER,
>> + [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL_SHIFT] = LBR_KERNEL,
>> + [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HV_SHIFT] = LBR_IGN,
>> + [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN_SHIFT] = LBR_RETURN | LBR_FAR,
>> + [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL_SHIFT] = LBR_REL_CALL | LBR_IND_CALL
>> + | LBR_FAR,
>> + [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL_SHIFT] = LBR_IND_CALL,
>> + [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CALL_STACK_SHIFT] = LBR_REL_CALL | LBR_IND_CALL
>> + | LBR_RETURN | LBR_CALL_STACK,
>> +};
>> +
>> /* core */
>> void intel_pmu_lbr_init_core(void)
>> {
>> @@ -751,6 +789,20 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_init_snb(void)
>> pr_cont("16-deep LBR, ");
>> }
>>
>> +/* haswell */
>> +void intel_pmu_lbr_init_hsw(void)
>> +{
>> + x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 16;
>> + x86_pmu.lbr_tos = MSR_LBR_TOS;
>> + x86_pmu.lbr_from = MSR_LBR_NHM_FROM;
>> + x86_pmu.lbr_to = MSR_LBR_NHM_TO;
>> +
>> + x86_pmu.lbr_sel_mask = LBR_SEL_MASK;
>> + x86_pmu.lbr_sel_map = hsw_lbr_sel_map;
>> +
>> + pr_cont("16-deep LBR, ");
>> +}
>> +
>> /* atom */
>> void intel_pmu_lbr_init_atom(void)
>> {
>> --
>> 1.8.4.2
>>

--
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/

Next message: Chanwoo Choi: "Re: [PATCH 07/18] mfd: max14577: Rename and add MAX14577 symbols toprepare for max77836"
Previous message: Calvin Owens: "[PATCH] ieee80211: Print human-readable disassoc/deauth reason codes"
In reply to: Stephane Eranian: "Re: [PATCH 04/14] perf, x86: Basic Haswell LBR call stack support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]