On 28/07/2023 07:17, Jing Zhang wrote:
Add new event test for uncore system event which is used to verify the
functionality of "Compat" matching multiple identifiers and the new event
fields "EventIdCode" and "Type".
Thanks for doing this. It looks ok. I just have a comment, below.
Signed-off-by: Jing Zhang <renyu.zj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json | 8 ++++
tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 63 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json b/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json
index c7e7528..879a0ae 100644
--- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json
+++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/test/test_soc/sys/uncore.json
@@ -12,5 +12,13 @@
"EventName": "sys_ccn_pmu.read_cycles",
"Unit": "sys_ccn_pmu",
"Compat": "0x01"
+ },
+ {
+ "BriefDescription": "Counts total cache misses in first lookup result (high priority).",
+ "Type": "0x05",
+ "EventIdCode": "0x01",
+ "EventName": "sys_cmn_pmu.hnf_cache_miss",
+ "Unit": "arm_cmn",
+ "Compat": "434*;436*;43c*;43a01"
}
]
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c b/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c
index 1dff863b..e227dcd 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c
@@ -255,9 +255,24 @@ struct perf_pmu_test_pmu {
.matching_pmu = "uncore_sys_ccn_pmu",
};
+static const struct perf_pmu_test_event sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss = {
+ .event = {
+ .name = "sys_cmn_pmu.hnf_cache_miss",
+ .event = "type=0x05,eventid=0x01",
+ .desc = "Counts total cache misses in first lookup result (high priority). Unit: uncore_arm_cmn ",
+ .topic = "uncore",
+ .pmu = "uncore_arm_cmn",
+ .compat = "434*;436*;43c*;43a01",
+ },
+ .alias_str = "type=0x5,eventid=0x1",
+ .alias_long_desc = "Counts total cache misses in first lookup result (high priority). Unit: uncore_arm_cmn ",
+ .matching_pmu = "uncore_arm_cmn_0",
+};
+
static const struct perf_pmu_test_event *sys_events[] = {
&sys_ddr_pmu_write_cycles,
&sys_ccn_pmu_read_cycles,
+ &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss,
NULL
};
@@ -699,6 +714,46 @@ static int __test_uncore_pmu_event_aliases(struct perf_pmu_test_pmu *test_pmu)
&sys_ccn_pmu_read_cycles,
},
},
+ {
+ .pmu = {
+ .name = (char *)"uncore_arm_cmn_0",
+ .is_uncore = 1,
+ .id = (char *)"43401",
+ },
+ .aliases = {
+ &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss,
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .pmu = {
+ .name = (char *)"uncore_arm_cmn_0",
+ .is_uncore = 1,
+ .id = (char *)"43602",
+ },
+ .aliases = {
+ &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss,
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .pmu = {
+ .name = (char *)"uncore_arm_cmn_1",
Shouldn't this match some perf_pmu_test_event entry with same
matching_pmu member? But is perf_pmu_test_event.matching_pmu member ever
used for any checking???
Thanks,
John
+ .is_uncore = 1,
+ .id = (char *)"43c03",
+ },
+ .aliases = {
+ &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss,
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .pmu = {
+ .name = (char *)"uncore_arm_cmn_1",
+ .is_uncore = 1,
+ .id = (char *)"43a01",
+ },
+ .aliases = {
+ &sys_cmn_pmu_hnf_cache_miss,
+ },
+ }
};
/* Test that aliases generated are as expected */
