在 2023/7/28 下午4:30, John Garry 写道:
> 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.
>
Thanks.
>> 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???
>
I need to double check because I was testing against 6.3-rc2.
Thanks,
Jing
> 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 */
