Re: [PATCH V11 05/10] arm64/perf: Add branch stack support in ARMV8 PMU
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date: 2023-06-05 12:05:52
Also in:
linux-perf-users, lkml
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:34:23AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This enables support for branch stack sampling event in ARMV8 PMU, checking has_branch_stack() on the event inside 'struct arm_pmu' callbacks. Although these branch stack helpers armv8pmu_branch_XXXXX() are just dummy functions for now. While here, this also defines arm_pmu's sched_task() callback with armv8pmu_sched_task(), which resets the branch record buffer on a sched_in.
This generally looks good, but I have a few comments below. [...]
+static inline bool armv8pmu_branch_valid(struct perf_event *event)
+{
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!has_branch_stack(event));
+ return false;
+}IIUC this is for validating the attr, so could we please name this armv8pmu_branch_attr_valid() ? [...]
+static int branch_records_alloc(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
+{
+ struct pmu_hw_events *events;
+ int cpu;
+
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+ events = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, cpu);
+ events->branches = kzalloc(sizeof(struct branch_records), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!events->branches)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ return 0;This leaks memory if any allocation fails, and the next patch replaces this code entirely. Please add this once in a working state. Either use the percpu allocation trick in the next patch from the start, or have this kzalloc() with a corresponding kfree() in an error path.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
} static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)@@ -1145,12 +1162,24 @@ static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu) }; int ret; + ret = armv8pmu_private_alloc(cpu_pmu); + if (ret) + return ret; + ret = smp_call_function_any(&cpu_pmu->supported_cpus, __armv8pmu_probe_pmu, &probe, 1); if (ret) return ret; + if (arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(cpu_pmu)) { + ret = branch_records_alloc(cpu_pmu); + if (ret) + return ret; + } else { + armv8pmu_private_free(cpu_pmu); + }
I see from the next patch that "private" is four ints, so please just add that to struct arm_pmu under an ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_BRBE. That'll simplify this, and if we end up needing more space in future we can consider factoring it out.
+ return probe.present ? 0 : -ENODEV; }
It also seems odd to ceck probe.present *after* checking
arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported().
With the allocation removed I think this can be written more clearly as:
| static int armv8pmu_probe_pmu(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
| {
| struct armv8pmu_probe_info probe = {
| .pmu = cpu_pmu,
| .present = false,
| };
| int ret;
|
| ret = smp_call_function_any(&cpu_pmu->supported_cpus,
| __armv8pmu_probe_pmu,
| &probe, 1);
| if (ret)
| return ret;
|
| if (!probe.present)
| return -ENODEV;
|
| if (arm_pmu_branch_stack_supported(cpu_pmu))
| ret = branch_records_alloc(cpu_pmu);
|
| return ret;
| }
Thanks,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel