RE: [PATCH 2/3] perf: arm_cspmu: nvidia: update CNVLINK PMU events

[Besar Wicaksono]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:19 AM
> To: Besar Wicaksono <bwicaksono@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx; robin.murphy@xxxxxxx;
> catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jon Hunter
> <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Vikram Sethi <vsethi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rich Wiley
> <rwiley@xxxxxxxxxx>; Bob Knight <rknight@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf: arm_cspmu: nvidia: update CNVLINK PMU
> events
> 
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 09:58:45PM +0000, Besar Wicaksono wrote:
> > Rename loc* and rem* events in CNVLINK PMU to cmem* and gmem*
> events.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Besar Wicaksono <bwicaksono@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/nvidia_cspmu.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/nvidia_cspmu.c
> b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/nvidia_cspmu.c
> > index ea2d44adfa7c..d1cd9975e71a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/nvidia_cspmu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/nvidia_cspmu.c
> > @@ -112,6 +112,25 @@ static struct attribute *mcf_pmu_event_attrs[] = {
> >       NULL,
> >  };
> >
> > +static struct attribute *mcf_cnvlink_pmu_event_attrs[] = {
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(rd_bytes_cmem,                     0x0),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(rd_bytes_gmem,                     0x1),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(wr_bytes_cmem,                     0x2),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(wr_bytes_gmem,                     0x3),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(total_bytes_cmem,                  0x4),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(total_bytes_gmem,                  0x5),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(rd_req_cmem,                       0x6),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(rd_req_gmem,                       0x7),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(wr_req_cmem,                       0x8),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(wr_req_gmem,                       0x9),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(total_req_cmem,                    0xa),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(total_req_gmem,                    0xb),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(rd_cum_outs_cmem,                  0xc),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(rd_cum_outs_gmem,                  0xd),
> > +     ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(cycles,
> ARM_CSPMU_EVT_CYCLES_DEFAULT),
> > +     NULL,
> > +};
> > +
> >  static struct attribute *generic_pmu_event_attrs[] = {
> >       ARM_CSPMU_EVENT_ATTR(cycles,
> ARM_CSPMU_EVT_CYCLES_DEFAULT),
> >       NULL,
> > @@ -234,7 +253,7 @@ static const struct nv_cspmu_match
> nv_cspmu_match[] = {
> >         .filter_default_val = NV_CNVL_FILTER_ID_MASK,
> >         .name_pattern = "nvidia_cnvlink_pmu_%u",
> >         .name_fmt = NAME_FMT_SOCKET,
> > -       .event_attr = mcf_pmu_event_attrs,
> > +       .event_attr = mcf_cnvlink_pmu_event_attrs,
> >         .format_attr = cnvlink_pmu_format_attrs
> >       },
> 
> Hmm. Isn't this a user-visible change? For example, will scripts driving
> 'perf' with the old event names continue to work after this patch?
> 

Yes this is user visible. I am expecting user script to be updated accordingly.
Would this be reasonable?

Regards,
Besar