On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:49:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:44:45PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:40:40 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:16:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > > > > In the long run I agree it would be good. Short term there are more instances of > > > > struct pmu that don't have parents than those that do (even after this series). > > > > We need to figure out what to do about those before adding checks on it being > > > > set. > > > > > > Right, I don't think you've touched *any* of the x86 PMUs for example, > > > and getting everybody that boots an x86 kernel a warning isn't going to > > > go over well :-) > > > > > > > It was tempting :) "Warning: Parentless PMU: try a different architecture." > > Haha! > > > I'd love some inputs on what the x86 PMU devices parents should be? > > CPU counters in general tend to just spin out of deep in the architecture code. > > For the 'simple' ones I suppose we can use the CPU device. Uh, *which* CPU device? Do we have a container device for all CPUs? > > My overall favorite is an l2 cache related PMU that is spun up in > > arch/arm/kernel/irq.c init_IRQ() That's an artifact of the L2 cache controller driver getting initialized there; ideally we'd have a device for the L2 cache itself (which presumably should hang off an aggregate CPU device). > Yeah, we're going to have a ton of them as well. Some of them are PCI > devices and have a clear parent, others, not so much :/ In a number of places the only thing we have is the PMU driver, and we don't have a driver (or device) for the HW block it's a part of. Largely that's interconnect PMUs; we could create container devices there. Mark.
