Re: perf record doesn't work on rtd129x SoC

[Robin Murphy]

On 04/12/2019 11:20 am, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2019-12-04 7:28 am, Andreas FÃrber wrote:
> > Hi YanQing,
> >
> > + LAKML + Mark + Will
> >
> > Am 04.12.19 um 05:55 schrieb Wang YanQing:
> > > I use "perf record" to debug performance issue on RTD1296 SOC, it 
> > > does't work, but
> > > the "perf stat" is ok!
> >
> > Thanks for the report - which board, branch and (base) tag are you
> > testing against? And are you building perf yourself from kernel sources,
> > or are you using some distro package?
> >
> > I only have Busybox in my initrd on DS418; I have not tested perf.
> >
> > > After some dig in the kernel, I find the reason is no pmu overflow 
> > > interrupt, I think
> > > below pmu configuration isn't right for RTD1296:
> > > "
> > > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ arm_pmu: arm-pmu {
> > > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
> > > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 48 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ };
> > > "
> > >
> > > We need 4 PMU SPI for RTD1296 (4 cores), and I guess the 48 isn't 
> > > right too.
> >
> > Note that above rtd129x.dtsi snippet is not complete. See rtd1296.dtsi:
> >
> > &arm_pmu {
> > ÂÂÂÂinterrupt-affinity = <&cpu0>, <&cpu1>, <&cpu2>, <&cpu3>;
> > };
>
> That doesn't help much, since 4 affinities for one SPI is rather 
> nonsensical.
>
> > 48 and high/4 match what I see in the latest BSP:
> >
> > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M4-bsp/blob/master/linux-rtk/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd129x/rtd-1296.dtsi#L116 
> >
> >
> > > Any suggestion is welcome.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > The only difference I see is "arm,cortex-a53-pmu" vs. "arm,armv8-pmuv3".
> > By my reading of arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c the only difference
> > between the two should be the name and an extra cache_map. You could try
> > the other compatible string in your .dts, but I doubt it'll help.
> >
> > Hopefully the Realtek or Arm guys can shed some light.
>
> If the SoC really has all 4 overflow interrupts combined into a single 
> SPI line, then sampling just isn't going to be supported - it's 
> unreasonably difficult to handle overflow when the IRQ may be taken on 
> the wrong CPU.

On closer inspection, that BSP kernel implements a whole hrtimer-based 
bodge in arm_pmu to apparently work around not having usable interrupts, 
so yeah, this isn't going to be usable, sorry.

Robin.