RE: [PATCH 2/3] perf: imx_perf: add support for i.MX95 platform

From: Xu Yang
Date: Fri Dec 01 2023 - 03:56:52 EST

Next message: Uros Bizjak: "[PATCH] x86/callthunks: Correct calculation of dest address in is_callthunk()"
Previous message: Yang, Weijiang: "Re: [PATCH v7 21/26] KVM: x86: Save and reload SSP to/from SMRAM"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Frank,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Li <frank.li@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 11:25 PM
> To: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@xxxxxxx>; will@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; festevam@xxxxxxxxx; irogers@xxxxxxxxxx; namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx; acme@xxxxxxxxxx;
> john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: james.clark@xxxxxxx; mike.leach@xxxxxxxxxx; leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx; peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx;
> alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-perf-
> users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] perf: imx_perf: add support for i.MX95 platform
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@xxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 1:32 AM
> > To: Frank Li <frank.li@xxxxxxx>; will@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx;
> > robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; festevam@xxxxxxxxx; irogers@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx; acme@xxxxxxxxxx; john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: james.clark@xxxxxxx; mike.leach@xxxxxxxxxx; leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] perf: imx_perf: add support for i.MX95 platform
> >
> > i.MX95 has a DDR PMU which is almostly same as i.MX93, it now supports
> > read beat and write beat filter capabilities. This will add support for
> > i.MX95 and enhance the driver to support specific filter handling for it.
> >
> > Usage:
> >
> > For read beat:
> > ~# perf stat -a -I 1000 -e
> > imx9_ddr0/eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt2,counter=3,axi_mask=ID_MASK,axi_id
> > =ID/
> > ~# perf stat -a -I 1000 -e
> > imx9_ddr0/eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt1,counter=4,axi_mask=ID_MASK,axi_id
> > =ID/
> > ~# perf stat -a -I 1000 -e
> > imx9_ddr0/eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt0,counter=5,axi_mask=ID_MASK,axi_id
> > =ID/
> > eg: For edma2: perf stat -a -I 1000 -e
> > imx9_ddr0/eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt0,counter=5,axi_mask=0x00f,axi_id=0x0
> > 0c/
> >
> > For write beat:
> > ~# perf stat -a -I 1000 -e
> > imx9_ddr0/eddrtq_pm_wr_beat_filt,counter=2,axi_mask=ID_MASK,axi_id=
> > ID/
> > eg: For edma2: perf stat -a -I 1000 -e
> > imx9_ddr0/eddrtq_pm_wr_beat_filt,counter=2,axi_mask=0x00f,axi_id=0x00
> > c/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/perf/fsl_imx9_ddr_perf.c | 187 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > --
> > 1 file changed, 164 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/perf/fsl_imx9_ddr_perf.c
> > b/drivers/perf/fsl_imx9_ddr_perf.c
> > index 5cf770a1bc31..5e531d94cf3b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/perf/fsl_imx9_ddr_perf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/perf/fsl_imx9_ddr_perf.c
> > @@ -11,14 +11,24 @@
> > #include <linux/perf_event.h>
> >
> > /* Performance monitor configuration */
> > -#define PMCFG1 0x00
> > -#define PMCFG1_RD_TRANS_FILT_EN BIT(31)
> > -#define PMCFG1_WR_TRANS_FILT_EN BIT(30)
> > -#define PMCFG1_RD_BT_FILT_EN BIT(29)
> > -#define PMCFG1_ID_MASK GENMASK(17, 0)
> > +#define PMCFG1 0x00
> > +#define MX93_PMCFG1_RD_TRANS_FILT_EN BIT(31)
> > +#define MX93_PMCFG1_WR_TRANS_FILT_EN BIT(30)
> > +#define MX93_PMCFG1_RD_BT_FILT_EN BIT(29)
> > +#define MX93_PMCFG1_ID_MASK GENMASK(17, 0)
> >
> > -#define PMCFG2 0x04
> > -#define PMCFG2_ID GENMASK(17, 0)
> > +#define MX95_PMCFG1_WR_BEAT_FILT_EN BIT(31)
> > +#define MX95_PMCFG1_RD_BEAT_FILT_EN BIT(30)
> > +
> > +#define PMCFG2 0x04
> > +#define MX93_PMCFG2_ID GENMASK(17, 0)
> > +
> > +#define PMCFG3 0x08
> > +#define PMCFG4 0x0C
> > +#define PMCFG5 0x10
> > +#define PMCFG6 0x14
> > +#define MX95_PMCFG_ID_MASK GENMASK(9, 0)
> > +#define MX95_PMCFG_ID GENMASK(25, 16)
> >
> > /* Global control register affects all counters and takes priority over local
> > control registers */
> > #define PMGC0 0x40
> > @@ -71,12 +81,22 @@ static const struct imx_ddr_devtype_data
> > imx93_devtype_data = {
> > .identifier = "imx93",
> > };
> >
> > +static const struct imx_ddr_devtype_data imx95_devtype_data = {
> > + .identifier = "imx95",
> > +};
> > +
> > static const struct of_device_id imx_ddr_pmu_dt_ids[] = {
> > {.compatible = "fsl,imx93-ddr-pmu", .data = &imx93_devtype_data},
> > + {.compatible = "fsl,imx95-ddr-pmu", .data = &imx95_devtype_data},
> > { /* sentinel */ }
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx_ddr_pmu_dt_ids);
> >
> > +static inline bool is_imx93(struct ddr_pmu *pmu)
> > +{
> > + return pmu->devtype_data == &imx93_devtype_data;
> > +}
> > +
> > static ssize_t ddr_perf_identifier_show(struct device *dev,
> > struct device_attribute *attr,
> > char *page)
> > @@ -178,7 +198,6 @@ static struct attribute *ddr_perf_events_attrs[] = {
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_ld_wiq_6, 70),
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_ld_wiq_7, 71),
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pmon_empty, 72),
> > - IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_rd_trans_filt, 73),
> >
> > /* counter3 specific events */
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_qx_row_collision_0, 64),
> > @@ -190,7 +209,6 @@ static struct attribute *ddr_perf_events_attrs[] = {
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_qx_row_collision_6, 70),
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_qx_row_collision_7, 71),
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pmon_full, 72),
> > - IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_wr_trans_filt, 73),
> >
> > /* counter4 specific events */
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_qx_row_open_0, 64),
> > @@ -202,7 +220,6 @@ static struct attribute *ddr_perf_events_attrs[] = {
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_qx_row_open_6, 70),
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_qx_row_open_7, 71),
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pmon_ld_rdq2_rmw, 72),
> > - IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt, 73),
> >
> > /* counter5 specific events */
> > IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(ddrc_qx_valid_start_0, 64),
> > @@ -242,6 +259,26 @@ static const struct attribute_group
> > ddr_perf_events_attr_group = {
> > .attrs = ddr_perf_events_attrs,
> > };
> >
> > +static struct attribute *imx93_ddr_perf_events_attrs[] = {
> > + /* counter2 specific events */
> > + IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_rd_trans_filt, 73),
> > + /* counter3 specific events */
> > + IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_wr_trans_filt, 73),
> > + /* counter4 specific events */
> > + IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt, 73),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct attribute *imx95_ddr_perf_events_attrs[] = {
> > + /* counter2 specific events */
> > + IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_wr_beat_filt, 73),
> > + /* counter3 specific events */
> > + IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt2, 73),
> > + /* counter4 specific events */
> > + IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt1, 73),
> > + /* counter5 specific events */
> > + IMX9_DDR_PMU_EVENT_ATTR(eddrtq_pm_rd_beat_filt0, 73),
> > +};
> > +
> > PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(event, "config:0-7");
> > PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(counter, "config:8-15");
> > PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(axi_id, "config1:0-17");
> > @@ -361,7 +398,7 @@ static void ddr_perf_counter_local_config(struct
> > ddr_pmu *pmu, int config,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static void ddr_perf_monitor_config(struct ddr_pmu *pmu, int cfg, int cfg1,
> > int cfg2)
> > +static void imx93_ddr_perf_monitor_config(struct ddr_pmu *pmu, int cfg,
> > int cfg1, int cfg2)
> > {
> > u32 pmcfg1, pmcfg2;
> > int event, counter;
> > @@ -372,30 +409,80 @@ static void ddr_perf_monitor_config(struct
> > ddr_pmu *pmu, int cfg, int cfg1, int
> > pmcfg1 = readl_relaxed(pmu->base + PMCFG1);
> >
> > if (counter == 2 && event == 73)
> > - pmcfg1 |= PMCFG1_RD_TRANS_FILT_EN;
> > + pmcfg1 |= MX93_PMCFG1_RD_TRANS_FILT_EN;
> > else if (counter == 2 && event != 73)
> > - pmcfg1 &= ~PMCFG1_RD_TRANS_FILT_EN;
> > + pmcfg1 &= ~MX93_PMCFG1_RD_TRANS_FILT_EN;
> >
> > if (counter == 3 && event == 73)
> > - pmcfg1 |= PMCFG1_WR_TRANS_FILT_EN;
> > + pmcfg1 |= MX93_PMCFG1_WR_TRANS_FILT_EN;
> > else if (counter == 3 && event != 73)
> > - pmcfg1 &= ~PMCFG1_WR_TRANS_FILT_EN;
> > + pmcfg1 &= ~MX93_PMCFG1_WR_TRANS_FILT_EN;
> >
> > if (counter == 4 && event == 73)
> > - pmcfg1 |= PMCFG1_RD_BT_FILT_EN;
> > + pmcfg1 |= MX93_PMCFG1_RD_BT_FILT_EN;
> > else if (counter == 4 && event != 73)
> > - pmcfg1 &= ~PMCFG1_RD_BT_FILT_EN;
> > + pmcfg1 &= ~MX93_PMCFG1_RD_BT_FILT_EN;
> >
> > - pmcfg1 &= ~FIELD_PREP(PMCFG1_ID_MASK, 0x3FFFF);
> > - pmcfg1 |= FIELD_PREP(PMCFG1_ID_MASK, cfg2);
> > + pmcfg1 &= ~FIELD_PREP(MX93_PMCFG1_ID_MASK, 0x3FFFF);
> > + pmcfg1 |= FIELD_PREP(MX93_PMCFG1_ID_MASK, cfg2);
> > writel(pmcfg1, pmu->base + PMCFG1);
> >
> > pmcfg2 = readl_relaxed(pmu->base + PMCFG2);
> > - pmcfg2 &= ~FIELD_PREP(PMCFG2_ID, 0x3FFFF);
> > - pmcfg2 |= FIELD_PREP(PMCFG2_ID, cfg1);
> > + pmcfg2 &= ~FIELD_PREP(MX93_PMCFG2_ID, 0x3FFFF);
> > + pmcfg2 |= FIELD_PREP(MX93_PMCFG2_ID, cfg1);
>
> Suggest created a sperate rename patch, which prepare for IMX95.
>
> Frank
>
> > writel(pmcfg2, pmu->base + PMCFG2);
> > }
> >
> > +static void imx95_ddr_perf_monitor_config(struct ddr_pmu *pmu, int cfg,
> > int cfg1, int cfg2)
> > +{
> > + u32 pmcfg1, pmcfg, offset = 0;
> > + int event, counter;
> > +
> > + event = cfg & 0x000000FF;
> > + counter = (cfg & 0x0000FF00) >> 8;
> > +
> > + pmcfg1 = readl_relaxed(pmu->base + PMCFG1);
> > +
> > + if (counter == 2 && event == 73) {
> > + pmcfg1 |= MX95_PMCFG1_WR_BEAT_FILT_EN;
> > + offset = PMCFG3;
> > + } else if (counter == 2 && event != 73) {
> > + pmcfg1 &= ~MX95_PMCFG1_WR_BEAT_FILT_EN;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (counter == 3 && event == 73) {
> > + pmcfg1 |= MX95_PMCFG1_RD_BEAT_FILT_EN;
> > + offset = PMCFG4;
> > + } else if (counter == 3 && event != 73) {
> > + pmcfg1 &= ~MX95_PMCFG1_RD_BEAT_FILT_EN;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (counter == 4 && event == 73) {
> > + pmcfg1 |= MX95_PMCFG1_RD_BEAT_FILT_EN;
> > + offset = PMCFG5;
> > + } else if (counter == 4 && event != 73) {
> > + pmcfg1 &= ~MX95_PMCFG1_RD_BEAT_FILT_EN;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (counter == 5 && event == 73) {
> > + pmcfg1 |= MX95_PMCFG1_RD_BEAT_FILT_EN;
> > + offset = PMCFG6;
> > + } else if (counter == 5 && event != 73) {
> > + pmcfg1 &= ~MX95_PMCFG1_RD_BEAT_FILT_EN;
> > + }
> > +
> > + writel(pmcfg1, pmu->base + PMCFG1);
> > +
> > + if (offset) {
> > + pmcfg = readl_relaxed(pmu->base + offset);
> > + pmcfg &= ~FIELD_PREP(MX95_PMCFG_ID_MASK, 0x3FF);
> > + pmcfg |= FIELD_PREP(MX95_PMCFG_ID_MASK, cfg2);
> > + pmcfg &= ~FIELD_PREP(MX95_PMCFG_ID, 0x3FF);
>
> It should be reductant.

Okay, will change this.

>
> > + pmcfg |= FIELD_PREP(MX95_PMCFG_ID, cfg1);
> > + writel(pmcfg, pmu->base + offset);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static void ddr_perf_event_update(struct perf_event *event)
> > {
> > struct ddr_pmu *pmu = to_ddr_pmu(event->pmu);
> > @@ -479,8 +566,13 @@ static int ddr_perf_event_add(struct perf_event
> > *event, int flags)
> > if (flags & PERF_EF_START)
> > ddr_perf_event_start(event, flags);
> >
> > - /* read trans, write trans, read beat */
> > - ddr_perf_monitor_config(pmu, cfg, cfg1, cfg2);
> > + if (is_imx93(pmu)) {
> > + /* read trans, write trans, read beat */
> > + imx93_ddr_perf_monitor_config(pmu, cfg, cfg1, cfg2);
> > + } else {
> > + /* write beat, read beat2, read beat1, read beat */
> > + imx95_ddr_perf_monitor_config(pmu, cfg, cfg1, cfg2);
> > + }
>
> Did you run checkpatch? no "{" need?, not sure have comments case.

No warning about this when run checkpatch.

> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -596,6 +688,49 @@ static int ddr_perf_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu,
> > struct hlist_node *node)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int ddr_perf_add_events(struct ddr_pmu *pmu)
> > +{
> > + int i, ret, events;
> > + struct attribute **attrs;
> > + struct device *pmu_dev = pmu->pmu.dev;
> > +
> > + if (is_imx93(pmu)) {
> > + events = sizeof(imx93_ddr_perf_events_attrs)/sizeof(struct
> > attribute *);
> > + attrs = imx93_ddr_perf_events_attrs;
> > + } else {
> > + events = sizeof(imx95_ddr_perf_events_attrs)/sizeof(struct
> > attribute *);
> > + attrs = imx95_ddr_perf_events_attrs;
> > + }
>
> Can you put "attrs" and "events" into drvdata?

Okay. Will try it.

>
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < events; i++) {
> > + ret = sysfs_add_file_to_group(&pmu_dev->kobj, attrs[i],
> > "events");
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_warn(pmu->dev, "i.MX9 DDR Perf add events
> > failed (%d)\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ddr_perf_remove_events(struct ddr_pmu *pmu)
> > +{
> > + int i, events;
> > + struct attribute **attrs;
> > + struct device *pmu_dev = pmu->pmu.dev;
> > +
> > + if (is_imx93(pmu)) {
> > + events = sizeof(imx93_ddr_perf_events_attrs)/sizeof(struct
> > attribute *);
> > + attrs = imx93_ddr_perf_events_attrs;
> > + } else {
> > + events = sizeof(imx95_ddr_perf_events_attrs)/sizeof(struct
> > attribute *);
> > + attrs = imx95_ddr_perf_events_attrs;
> > + }
>
> Can you put "attrs" and "events" into drvdata?

Okay.

Thanks,
Xu Yang

>
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < events; i++)
> > + sysfs_remove_file_from_group(&pmu_dev->kobj, attrs[i],
> > "events");
> > +}
> > +
> > static int ddr_perf_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > struct ddr_pmu *pmu;
> > @@ -666,6 +801,10 @@ static int ddr_perf_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> > if (ret)
> > goto ddr_perf_err;
> >
> > + ret = ddr_perf_add_events(pmu);
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "i.MX9 DDR Perf filter events are
> > missing\n");
> > +
> > return 0;
> >
> > ddr_perf_err:
> > @@ -683,6 +822,8 @@ static int ddr_perf_remove(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> > {
> > struct ddr_pmu *pmu = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >
> > + ddr_perf_remove_events(pmu);
> > +
> > cpuhp_state_remove_instance_nocalls(pmu->cpuhp_state, &pmu-
> > >node);
> > cpuhp_remove_multi_state(pmu->cpuhp_state);
> >
> > --
> > 2.34.1

Next message: Uros Bizjak: "[PATCH] x86/callthunks: Correct calculation of dest address in is_callthunk()"
Previous message: Yang, Weijiang: "Re: [PATCH v7 21/26] KVM: x86: Save and reload SSP to/from SMRAM"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]