Re: Haswell mem-store question

[Stephane Eranian]

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Andi,
>
> Joe was playing with our c2c tool today and noticed we were losing store
> events from perf's mem-stores event.  Upon investigation we stumbled into
> some differences in data that Haswell reports vs. Ivy/Sandy Bridge.
>
> This leaves our tool needing two different paths depending on the
> architect, which seems odd.
>
> I was hoping you or someone can explain to me the correct way to interpret
> the mem-stores data.
>
> My current problem is mem_lvl.  It can be defined as
>
> /* memory hierarchy (memory level, hit or miss) */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_NA         0x01  /* not available */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_HIT        0x02  /* hit level */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_MISS       0x04  /* miss level  */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_L1         0x08  /* L1 */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_LFB        0x10  /* Line Fill Buffer */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_L2         0x20  /* L2 */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_L3         0x40  /* L3 */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_LOC_RAM    0x80  /* Local DRAM */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_REM_RAM1   0x100 /* Remote DRAM (1 hop) */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_REM_RAM2   0x200 /* Remote DRAM (2 hops) */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_REM_CCE1   0x400 /* Remote Cache (1 hop) */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_REM_CCE2   0x800 /* Remote Cache (2 hops) */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_IO         0x1000 /* I/O memory */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_UNC        0x2000 /* Uncached memory */
> #define PERF_MEM_LVL_SHIFT      5
>
> Currently IVB and SNB use LVL_L1 & (LVL_HIT or LVL_MISS) seen here in
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c
>
> static u64 precise_store_data(u64 status)
> {
>         union intel_x86_pebs_dse dse;
>         u64 val = P(OP, STORE) | P(SNOOP, NA) | P(LVL, L1) | P(TLB, L2);
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
>                                                 defined here
>
>         dse.val = status;
>
> <snip>
>         /*
>          * bit 0: hit L1 data cache
>          * if not set, then all we know is that
>          * it missed L1D
>          */
>         if (dse.st_l1d_hit)
>                 val |= P(LVL, HIT);
>         else
>                 val |= P(LVL, MISS);
>
>         ^^^^^^^
>         updated here
>
> <snip>
> }
>
> However Haswell does something different:
>
> static u64 precise_store_data_hsw(u64 status)
> {
>         union perf_mem_data_src dse;
>
>         dse.val = 0;
>         dse.mem_op = PERF_MEM_OP_STORE;
>         dse.mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_NA;
>                         ^^^^^^
>                         defines NA here
>
>
>         if (status & 1)
>                 dse.mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_L1;
>
>                 ^^^^^^^
>                 switch to LVL_L1 here


I think this code has a problem here.
I need to mark the hit or miss status.

I think it should do:

if (status & 1)
        dse.mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_L1|PERF_MEM_LVL_HIT;
else
        dse.mem_lvl = PERF_MEM_LVL_L1|PERF_MEM_LVL_MISS;

Otherwise you have L1 as the level with no hit/miss info.


> <snip>
> }
>
> So our c2c tool kept store statistics to help determine what types of
> stores are causing conflicts
>
> <snip>
>         } else if (op & P(OP,STORE)) {
>                 /* store */
>                 stats->t.store++;
>
>                 if (!daddr) {
>                         stats->t.st_noadrs++;
>                         return -1;
>                 }
>
>                 if (lvl & P(LVL,HIT)) {
>                         if (lvl & P(LVL,UNC)) stats->t.st_uncache++;
>                         if (lvl & P(LVL,L1 )) stats->t.st_l1hit++;
>                 } else if (lvl & P(LVL,MISS)) {
>                         if (lvl & P(LVL,L1)) stats->t.st_l1miss++;
>                 }
>         }
> <snip>
>
> This no longer works on Haswell because Haswell doesn't set LVL_HIT or
> LVL_MISS any more.  Instead it uses LVL_NA or LVL_L1.
>
> So from a generic tool perspective, what is the recommended way to
> properly capture these stats to cover both arches?  The hack I have now
> is:
>
>         } else if (op & P(OP,STORE)) {
>                 /* store */
>                 stats->t.store++;
>
>                 if (!daddr) {
>                         stats->t.st_noadrs++;
>                         return -1;
>                 }
>
>                 if ((lvl & P(LVL,HIT)) || (lvl & P(LVL,L1))) {
>                         if (lvl & P(LVL,UNC)) stats->t.st_uncache++;
>                         if (lvl & P(LVL,L1 )) stats->t.st_l1hit++;
>                 } else if ((lvl & P(LVL,MISS)) || (lvl & P(LVL,NA))) {
>                         if (lvl & P(LVL,L1)) stats->t.st_l1miss++;
>                         if (lvl & P(LVL,NA)) stats->t.st_l1miss++;
>                 }
>         }
>
> I am not sure that is really future proof.  Thoughts? Help?
>
> Cheers,
> Don
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/