On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:38:50AM -0400, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Calculate the numbers of cycles per instruction (CPI) implied by ARM
> PMU cycle counter values. The code includes a strict checking facility
> intended for the -icount option in TCG mode but it is not yet enabled
> in the configuration file. Enabling it must wait on infrastructure
> improvements which allow for different tests to be run on TCG versus
> KVM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington <cov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arm/pmu.c | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 104 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
> index c44d708..59f26ab 100644
> --- a/arm/pmu.c
> +++ b/arm/pmu.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,25 @@ static inline unsigned long get_pmccntr(void)
> asm volatile("mrc p15, 0, %0, c9, c13, 0" : "=r" (cycles));
> return cycles;
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * Extra instructions such as `mov rd, #0` inserted by the compiler would be
Probably don't need the 'such as `mov..`. Removing it also allows this
comment to directly match the 64-bit one.
> + * difficult to compensate for, so hand assemble everything between, and
> + * including, the PMCR accesses to start and stop counting.
> + */
> +static inline void loop(int i, uint32_t pmcr)
> +{
> + uint32_t z = 0;
> +
> + asm volatile(
> + " mcr p15, 0, %[pmcr], c9, c12, 0\n"
> + "1: subs %[i], %[i], #1\n"
> + " bgt 1b\n"
> + " mcr p15, 0, %[z], c9, c12, 0\n"
Thanks for making some formatting improvements. We're still
missing the tabs after the instructions though. The format
used by the kernel is
[label]<tab>insn<tab>operands
> + : [i] "+r" (i)
> + : [pmcr] "r" (pmcr), [z] "r" (z)
I don't think you should need the z variable. Just doing
[z] "r" (0)
should work.
> + : "cc");
> +}
> #elif defined(__aarch64__)
> static inline uint32_t get_pmcr(void)
> {
> @@ -64,6 +83,23 @@ static inline unsigned long get_pmccntr(void)
> asm volatile("mrs %0, pmccntr_el0" : "=r" (cycles));
> return cycles;
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * Extra instructions inserted by the compiler would be difficult to compensate
> + * for, so hand assemble everything between, and including, the PMCR accesses
> + * to start and stop counting.
> + */
> +static inline void loop(int i, uint32_t pmcr)
> +{
> + asm volatile(
> + " msr pmcr_el0, %[pmcr]\n"
> + "1: subs %[i], %[i], #1\n"
> + " b.gt 1b\n"
> + " msr pmcr_el0, xzr\n"
same tab after insn comment
> + : [i] "+r" (i)
> + : [pmcr] "r" (pmcr)
> + : "cc");
> +}
> #endif
>
> struct pmu_data {
> @@ -131,12 +167,79 @@ static bool check_cycles_increase(void)
> return true;
> }
>
> -int main(void)
> +/*
> + * Execute a known number of guest instructions. Only odd instruction counts
> + * greater than or equal to 3 are supported by the in-line assembly code. The
> + * control register (PMCR_EL0) is initialized with the provided value (allowing
> + * for example for the cycle counter or event counters to be reset). At the end
> + * of the exact instruction loop, zero is written to PMCR_EL0 to disable
> + * counting, allowing the cycle counter or event counters to be read at the
> + * leisure of the calling code.
> + */
> +static void measure_instrs(int num, uint32_t pmcr)
> +{
> + int i = (num - 1) / 2;
> +
> + assert(num >= 3 && ((num - 1) % 2 == 0));
> + loop(i, pmcr);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Measure cycle counts for various known instruction counts. Ensure that the
> + * cycle counter progresses (similar to check_cycles_increase() but with more
> + * instructions and using reset and stop controls). If supplied a positive,
> + * nonzero CPI parameter, also strictly check that every measurement matches
> + * it. Strict CPI checking is used to test -icount mode.
> + */
> +static bool check_cpi(int cpi)
> +{
> + struct pmu_data pmu = { {0} };
> +
> + pmu.cycle_counter_reset = 1;
> + pmu.enable = 1;
> +
> + if (cpi > 0)
> + printf("Checking for CPI=%d.\n", cpi);
> + printf("instrs : cycles0 cycles1 ...\n");
> +
> + for (int i = 3; i < 300; i += 32) {
> + int avg, sum = 0;
> +
> + printf("%d :", i);
> + for (int j = 0; j < NR_SAMPLES; j++) {
> + int cycles;
> +
> + measure_instrs(i, pmu.pmcr_el0);
> + cycles = get_pmccntr();
> + printf(" %d", cycles);
> +
> + if (!cycles || (cpi > 0 && cycles != i * cpi)) {
> + printf("\n");
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + sum += cycles;
> + }
> + avg = sum / NR_SAMPLES;
> + printf(" sum=%d avg=%d avg_ipc=%d avg_cpi=%d\n",
> + sum, avg, i / avg, avg / i);
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> + int cpi = 0;
> +
> + if (argc > 1)
if (argc > 0)
Unlike a real main() we don't have the program name automatically put
in argv[0]. This inconsistency is a bit annoying, but to change it now
probably isn't worth it.
> + cpi = atol(argv[0]);
Ah, looks like the right index is being used here though, so the above
check was probably supposed to be >=
> +
> report_prefix_push("pmu");
>
> report("Control register", check_pmcr());
> report("Monotonically increasing cycle count", check_cycles_increase());
> + report("Cycle/instruction ratio", check_cpi(cpi));
>
> return report_summary();
> }
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>
>
Thanks,
drew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
