RE: oprofile support for PPC_E5500

[Michael P. <mp...@re...>]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Beaman, Thomas wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>

Hi Tom,

> I wanted to update you on my status. I was able to apply your patch, but I did notice a few recommendations for change.
>
> The E5500 is a 64 bit cpu like the E6500. I have noticed that the E6500 has entries in both the ppc and ppc64 directories.  Also the op_cpu_type.c  file has two entries  ppc/e6500 and ppc64/e6500. I believe the e5500 should also be like this.

I don't see any ppc64/e6500 dir. Do you have the same git tree?

https://sourceforge.net/p/oprofile/oprofile/ci/master/tree/events/ppc64/

[Michael@Diego oprofile]$ ls events/ppc64 events/ppc
events/ppc:
7450  e300  e500  e500mc  e500v2  e5500  e6500
events/ppc64:
970  970MP  architected_events_v1  power4  power5  power5+  power5++  power6  power7  power8

The same with op_cpu_type.c:

[Michael@Diego oprofile]$ grep -P -i ppc6?4?/e6500 ./libop/op_cpu_type.c
         { "e6500", "ppc/e6500", CPU_PPC_E6500, 6 },

Anyway, it should not matter whether the events/unit_masks files are in ppc or ppc64 dir,
as you can see, Intel datafiles are in i386 dir while AMD files are in x86-64, no matter
that Intel CPUs run in 64bit mode now. Regarding to the ppc/ppc64, you can see that ppc64
dir contains IBM POWER processors, while ppc is for the others.

>
> After applying your patch I made the following changes by hand.
>
> Add ppc64/e5500  event and unit_masks (with includes pointing to ppc64/e6500)
> Add ppc64/e5500 entry to op_cpu_type.c
> Fix typo in ppc/unit_masks  include:ppc/6500  should be  include:ppc/e6500
Yes, I haven't noticed the typo. Thanks.

>
> After these changes I am now able to run ophelp and it list lots of info, so it is now detecting the cpu.

The command `ophelp -r` should print the processor type
If ophelp is reporting events, it is good news.

>
> I tried running your check_events.sh script but was running into problems.  I am off until Monday but I wanted to give you a status update. If you want to modify the patch I can test a new one on Monday and also figure out what is going on with check_events.

The script just parses all the supported events from ophelp and then it runs
`ocount -b -e $event -- sleep 0.2` against each of them.

There's no E5500 or any other similar CPU available for me, just an IBM POWER7
box and I have no problems running the script there.

You may try it manually:

perl -ne 'print "$1\n" if /name:(\w+)\s/' < events/ppc/e6500/events > events.list
for i in `cat events.list`; do
 	ocount -b -e $i -- sleep 0.2 >> result.log
done

>
> I do not know the posting protocol, should I be posting this reply to the oprofile-list or is direct communications acceptable ?   If it should go to the list can you forward it on and let me know for future postings.

It's always better when the messages go to the list, since other people might find
them useful later on.

>
> Thanks for your help so far,
> Tom

Michael

>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Petlan [mailto:mp...@re...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 10:48 AM
> To: Beaman, Thomas
> Cc: opr...@li...
> Subject: Re: oprofile support for PPC_E5500
>
> Hi,
>
> could you please test the attached patch?
>
> E6500 also has the same PMU events as E500mc plus some more.
> It would be good to know what the set of events supported by the E5500 actually is.
>
> Please run the oprofile-tests testsuite and the attached test and send the logs from the second one?
>
> Anyway, it would be nice if someone more appropriate reviewed the events and checks the kernel support, etc.
>
> Thanks.
> Michael
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Beaman, Thomas wrote:
>> When I am running on my PPC E5500 system oprofile cannot detect the
>> CPU
>>
>>  
>>
>> operf --version
>>
>> Unable to obtain cpu_type
>>
>>  
>>
>> Looking at op_cpu_type.h I see entries for
>>
>>  
>>
>>                 CPU_PPC_E500MC, /**< e500mc */
>>
>>                 CPU_PPC_E6500, /**< e6500 */
>>
>>  
>>
>> But no entry for the PPC E5500.  The E5500 is very similar to e500mc and the E6500.  Can support be added for this processor ?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>