Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

7 messages, 5 authors, 2007-07-11 · open the first message on its own page

Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

From: Mike Wolf <hidden>
Date: 2007-07-10 18:13:51 

The patch has not been included and there have been no comments so
I'm resending.

This patch adds a new oprofile cpu type for Power 5 revision 3 chips.
The new name is ppc64/power5++ and is used so that the performance
counters can be set up correctly.

Signed-off-by: Mike Wolf <redacted>

-------- 
linux-2.6.18.ppc64.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2006-09-19 22:42:06.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.18.ppc64/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2007-06-11 12:29:47.000000000 -0500
@@ -236,6 +236,21 @@
 		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
 		.platform		= "power5",
 	},
+	{	/* Power5++ */
+		.pvr_mask		= 0xffffff00,
+		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0300,
+		.cpu_name		= "POWER5+ (gs)",
+		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_POWER5,
+		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_POWER5_PLUS,
+		.icache_bsize		= 128,
+		.dcache_bsize		= 128,
+		.num_pmcs		= 6,
+		.oprofile_cpu_type	= "ppc64/power5++",
+		.oprofile_type		= PPC_OPROFILE_POWER4,
+		.oprofile_mmcra_sihv	= MMCRA_SIHV,
+		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
+		.platform		= "power5+",
+	},
 	{	/* Power5 GS */
 		.pvr_mask		= 0xffff0000,
 		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0000,

Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

From: Michael Neuling <hidden>
Date: 2007-07-10 19:43:36 

The patch has not been included and there have been no comments so
I'm resending.

This patch adds a new oprofile cpu type for Power 5 revision 3 chips.
The new name is ppc64/power5++ and is used so that the performance
counters can be set up correctly.
Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  

Mikey

Signed-off-by: Mike Wolf <redacted>

-------- 
linux-2.6.18.ppc64.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2006-09-19 22:4
2:06.000000000 -0500
quoted hunk
+++ linux-2.6.18.ppc64/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2007-06-11 12:29:47.000
000000 -0500
quoted hunk
@@ -236,6 +236,21 @@
 		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
 		.platform		= "power5",
 	},
+	{	/* Power5++ */
+		.pvr_mask		= 0xffffff00,
+		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0300,
+		.cpu_name		= "POWER5+ (gs)",
+		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_POWER5,
+		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_POWER5_PLUS,
+		.icache_bsize		= 128,
+		.dcache_bsize		= 128,
+		.num_pmcs		= 6,
+		.oprofile_cpu_type	= "ppc64/power5++",
+		.oprofile_type		= PPC_OPROFILE_POWER4,
+		.oprofile_mmcra_sihv	= MMCRA_SIHV,
+		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
+		.platform		= "power5+",
+	},
 	{	/* Power5 GS */
 		.pvr_mask		= 0xffff0000,
 		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0000,

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev





  

    
Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

    

      From: Mike Wolf <hidden>

      Date: 2007-07-10 20:11:46 
    

  

  
Michael Neuling wrote:
quoted
The patch has not been included and there have been no comments so
I'm resending.

This patch adds a new oprofile cpu type for Power 5 revision 3 chips.
The new name is ppc64/power5++ and is used so that the performance
counters can be set up correctly.
    
Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
  
This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
I followed that convention. 
Mikey

  
quoted
Signed-off-by: Mike Wolf <redacted>

-------- 
linux-2.6.18.ppc64.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2006-09-19 22:4
    
2:06.000000000 -0500
  
quoted
+++ linux-2.6.18.ppc64/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2007-06-11 12:29:47.000
    
000000 -0500
  
quoted
@@ -236,6 +236,21 @@
 		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
 		.platform		= "power5",
 	},
+	{	/* Power5++ */
+		.pvr_mask		= 0xffffff00,
+		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0300,
+		.cpu_name		= "POWER5+ (gs)",
+		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_POWER5,
+		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_POWER5_PLUS,
+		.icache_bsize		= 128,
+		.dcache_bsize		= 128,
+		.num_pmcs		= 6,
+		.oprofile_cpu_type	= "ppc64/power5++",
+		.oprofile_type		= PPC_OPROFILE_POWER4,
+		.oprofile_mmcra_sihv	= MMCRA_SIHV,
+		.oprofile_mmcra_sipr	= MMCRA_SIPR,
+		.platform		= "power5+",
+	},
 	{	/* Power5 GS */
 		.pvr_mask		= 0xffff0000,
 		.pvr_value		= 0x003b0000,

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

    





  

    
Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

    

      From: Michael Neuling <hidden>

      Date: 2007-07-10 20:31:14 
    

  

  
quoted
Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
  
This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
I followed that convention. 
I'm not too fussed, but if rev 4 comes out, the counters change and we
need power5+++, it's gonna look pretty silly :-)

Mikey





  

    
Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

    

      From: Will Schmidt <hidden>

      Date: 2007-07-10 21:08:40 
    

  

  
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote:
quoted
quoted
Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
  
This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
I followed that convention. 
There is an oprofile change already made, or in-flight, or at least
submitted, that will be looking for the "power5++" string, so if the
string changes here, it'll need to be changed there too. 

( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.oprofile/4670 )

I'm not too fussed, but if rev 4 comes out, the counters change and we
need power5+++, it's gonna look pretty silly :-)
silly, but would be funny to see.  :-) 

Mikey
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev





  

    
Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

    

      From: Maynard Johnson <hidden>

      Date: 2007-07-10 21:34:00 
    

  

  
Will Schmidt wrote:

On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote:

quoted
quoted
quoted
Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
 
This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
I have no idea if there will be a revision 4, etc, but I'm assuming the 
behavior would be the same as rev 3.  So I'm not in favor of changing 
this string to include "rev3" in it.  But whatever decision is made, I 
hope it can be made soon.  The OProfile community is testing a release 
candidate right now that includes the userspace portion of this issue 
which checks for the string "ppc64/power5++".  We hope to GA this next 
oprofile release very soon.

Thanks.
-Maynard
quoted
quoted
I followed that convention. 

There is an oprofile change already made, or in-flight, or at least
submitted, that will be looking for the "power5++" string, so if the
string changes here, it'll need to be changed there too. 

( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.oprofile/4670 )


quoted
I'm not too fussed, but if rev 4 comes out, the counters change and we
need power5+++, it's gonna look pretty silly :-)

silly, but would be funny to see.  :-) 


quoted
Mikey
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev





  

    
Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

    

      From: Olof Johansson <hidden>

      Date: 2007-07-11 20:39:59 
    

  

  
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:33:48PM -0500, Maynard Johnson wrote:
Will Schmidt wrote:

quoted
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote:

quoted
quoted
quoted
Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
 
This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
I have no idea if there will be a revision 4, etc, but I'm assuming the 
behavior would be the same as rev 3.  So I'm not in favor of changing 
The way the cputable patch is now, the rev 4 would match the base revision
anyway.  Maybe it makes more sense to make PVR xxxx01xx and xxxx02xx
explicitly match the old power5+, and make everything else match power5++?

I guess it all depends on the chance of IBM doing another major rev of
power5. Given it's current phase of product maturity I suppose it's not
all that likely. Doing it this way saves yet another cputable entry as
well, since it would otherwise mean two added entries instead of one.


-Olof




    
  

  
    

      

        Keyboard shortcuts
      

      

        
          
hback out one level

          
jnext message in thread

          
kprevious message in thread

          
ldrill in

          
Escclose help / fold thread tree

          
?toggle this help