On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 02:56:10PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
SNIP
> #endif /* __LIBPERF_INTERNAL_MMAP_H */
> diff --git a/tools/lib/perf/include/perf/evsel.h
> b/tools/lib/perf/include/perf/evsel.h
> index c82ec39a4ad0..6d0da962870c 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/perf/include/perf/evsel.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/perf/include/perf/evsel.h
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ LIBPERF_API int perf_evsel__open(struct perf_evsel *evsel,
> struct perf_cpu_map *
> struct perf_thread_map *threads);
> LIBPERF_API void perf_evsel__close(struct perf_evsel *evsel);
> LIBPERF_API void perf_evsel__close_cpu(struct perf_evsel *evsel, int cpu);
> +LIBPERF_API void *perf_evsel__mmap(struct perf_evsel *evsel);
> LIBPERF_API int perf_evsel__read(struct perf_evsel *evsel, int cpu, int
> thread,
> struct perf_counts_values *count);
> LIBPERF_API int perf_evsel__enable(struct perf_evsel *evsel);
> diff --git a/tools/lib/perf/libperf.map b/tools/lib/perf/libperf.map
> index 7be1af8a546c..733a0647be8b 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/perf/libperf.map
> +++ b/tools/lib/perf/libperf.map
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ LIBPERF_0.0.1 {
> perf_evsel__disable;
> perf_evsel__open;
> perf_evsel__close;
> + perf_evsel__mmap;
> perf_evsel__read;
> perf_evsel__cpus;
> perf_evsel__threads;
please put perf_evsel__mmap changes into separate patch
SNIP
> +int perf_mmap__read_self(struct perf_mmap *map, struct perf_counts_values
> *count)
> +{
> + struct perf_event_mmap_page *pc = map->base;
> + u32 seq, idx, time_mult = 0, time_shift = 0;
> + u64 cnt, cyc = 0, time_offset = 0, time_cycles = 0, time_mask = ~0ULL;
> +
> + BUG_ON(!pc);
> +
> + if (!pc->cap_user_rdpmc)
> + return -1;
> +
> + do {
> + seq = READ_ONCE(pc->lock);
> + barrier();
> +
> + count->ena = READ_ONCE(pc->time_enabled);
> + count->run = READ_ONCE(pc->time_running);
> +
> + if (pc->cap_user_time && count->ena != count->run) {
> + cyc = read_timestamp();
> + time_mult = READ_ONCE(pc->time_mult);
> + time_shift = READ_ONCE(pc->time_shift);
> + time_offset = READ_ONCE(pc->time_offset);
> +
> + if (pc->cap_user_time_short) {
> + time_cycles = READ_ONCE(pc->time_cycles);
> + time_mask = READ_ONCE(pc->time_mask);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + idx = READ_ONCE(pc->index);
> + cnt = READ_ONCE(pc->offset);
> + if (pc->cap_user_rdpmc && idx) {
no need to check pc->cap_user_rdpmc again
> +static int test_stat_user_read(int event)
> +{
> + struct perf_counts_values counts = { .val = 0 };
> + struct perf_thread_map *threads;
> + struct perf_evsel *evsel;
> + struct perf_event_mmap_page *pc;
> + struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> + .type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE,
> + .config = event,
> + };
> + int err, i;
> +
> + threads = perf_thread_map__new_dummy();
> + __T("failed to create threads", threads);
> +
> + perf_thread_map__set_pid(threads, 0, 0);
> +
> + evsel = perf_evsel__new(&attr);
> + __T("failed to create evsel", evsel);
> +
> + err = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, threads);
> + __T("failed to open evsel", err == 0);
> +
> + pc = perf_evsel__mmap(evsel);
> + __T("failed to mmap evsel", pc);
> +
> +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__)
> + __T("userspace counter access not supported", pc->cap_user_rdpmc);
> + __T("userspace counter access not enabled", pc->index);
> + __T("userspace counter width not set", pc->pmc_width >= 32);
> +#endif
> +
> + perf_evsel__read(evsel, 0, 0, &counts);
> + __T("failed to read value for evsel", counts.val != 0);
> +
> + fputs("\n", stderr);
> + for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
> + volatile int count = 0x10000 << i;
> + __u64 start, end, last = 0;
> +
> + fprintf(stderr, "\tloop = %u, ", count);
we should add support to display verbose output for tests,
because right now this breaks the output:
- running test-cpumap.c...OK
- running test-threadmap.c...OK
- running test-evlist.c...OK
- running test-evsel.c...
loop = 65536, count = 328035
loop = 131072, count = 655715
loop = 262144, count = 1311075
loop = 524288, count = 2627060
loop = 1048576, count = 5253540
loop = 65536, count = 327594
loop = 131072, count = 659930
loop = 262144, count = 1378892
loop = 524288, count = 2664341
loop = 1048576, count = 5365682
OK
but we can do it in separate change later
thanks,
jirka
