Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:02:43PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alan Kao <alan...@andestech.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:19:09AM +0800, Zong Li wrote: > > > This patch set adds raw event support on RISC-V. In addition, we > > > introduce the DT mechanism to make our perf more generic and common. > > > > > > Currently, we set the hardware events by writing the mhpmeventN CSRs, it > > > would raise an illegal instruction exception and trap into m-mode to > > > emulate event selector CSRs access. It doesn't make sense because we > > > shouldn't write the m-mode CSRs in s-mode. Ideally, we should set event > > > selector through standard SBI call or the shadow CSRs of s-mode. We have > > > prepared a proposal of a new SBI extension, called "PMU SBI extension", > > > but we also discussing the feasibility of accessing these PMU CSRs on > > > s-mode at the same time, such as delegation mechanism, so I was > > > wondering if we could use SBI calls first and make the PMU SBI extension > > > as legacy when s-mode access mechanism is accepted by Foundation? or > > > keep the current situation to see what would happen in the future. > > > > > > This patch set also introduces the DT mechanism, we don't want to add too > > > much platform-dependency code in perf like other architectures, so we > > > put the mapping of generic hardware events to DT, then we can easy to > > > transfer generic hardware events to vendor's own hardware events without > > > any platfrom-dependency stuff in our perf. > > > > > > Zong Li (6): > > > dt-bindings: riscv: Add YAML documentation for PMU > > > riscv: dts: sifive: Add DT support for PMU > > > riscv: add definition of hpmcounter CSRs > > > riscv: perf: Add raw event support > > > riscv: perf: introduce DT mechanism > > > riscv: remove PMU menu of Kconfig > > > > > > > DT-based PMU registration looks good to me. Together with Anup's feedback, > > we can anticipate that the following items will be: > > > > - rewrite RISC-V PMU to a platform driver > > - propose SBI PMU extention > > - fixes: RV32 counter access, namings, etc. > > > > Yes, all are good directions towards better counting (`perf stat`) function. > > But as the original author of RISC-V perf port, please allow me to address > > the fundamental problems of RISC-V perf, again [0][1][2][3], that the > > sampling > > (`perf record`) function never earned enough respect. Counting gives you a > > shallow view regarding an application, while sampling demystifies one for > > you. > > > > The problems are three-fold > > (1) Interrupt > > Sampling in perf requires that a HPM raises an interrupt when it overflows. > > Making RISC-V perf platform driver or not has nothing to do with this. This > > requires more discussions in TGs. > > (2) S-mode access to PMU CSRs > > This is also addressed in this patch set but to me, it is kind of like a > > SBI-solves-them-all mindset to me. Perf event is for performance monitoring > > thus we should eliminate any possible overhead if we can. Setting event > > masks > > through SBI calls for counting maybe OK, but if we really take sampling and > > interrupt handling into consideration, it is questionable if it is still a > > viable way. > > (3) Registers, registers, registers > > There is just no enough CSR/function for perf sampling. The previous > > proposal > > explains why [2]. > > > > Perf sampling is off-topic but somehow related, so I bring it up here just > > for your information. > > > > As this patch set goes v2, the PMU porting guide in [0] should be removed > > since > > it contains no useful information anymore. > > > > [0] Documentation/riscv/pmu.rst > > [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onvlcl4e2IU > > [2] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/issues/402 > > This proposal has been posted in Privileged Spec Task Group, in > > https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-privileged-archive/message/488?p=,,,20,0,0,0::Created,,Proposal,20,2,40,32306071 > > but never receive any feedback. > > [3] https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unixplatformspec/message/84 > > I intended to discuss [2] in the Unixplatform Spec Task Group at the > > online meeting, but obviously people were too busy knowing who the new > > RISC-V CTO is and what he has done to even follow the agenda. > > > > Sorry. The last meeting's agenda was derailed for numerous reasons. > Are you okay with discussing this during the next meeting ? > I have not scheduled one yet but will probably schedule it on next > Wednesday (8th July) if there is no objection. > I can check with Anup if he can present the SBI PMU extension as well.
Thanks for the oppertunity. But I don't think that the time is enough for every important topic to be covered. What I provided in the previous citation [2] is a proposal, which need expert to judge and critique after thorough reading. The TG Chair should decide the priority of the items. If there is any chance for our proposal, I can give brief introductions. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linux-riscv mailing list > > linux-ri...@lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv > > > > -- > Regards, > Atish