linux_dsm_epyc7002/tools/include/linux/ring_buffer.h
Jiri Olsa db9a5fd02a tools headers: Add missing perf_event.h include
We need perf_event.h include for 'struct perf_event_mmap_page'.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-bolqkmqajexhccjb0ib0an8w@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Michael Petlan <mpetlan@redhat.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190822111141.25823-2-jolsa@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
2019-08-22 11:12:36 -03:00

75 lines
2.4 KiB
C

#ifndef _TOOLS_LINUX_RING_BUFFER_H_
#define _TOOLS_LINUX_RING_BUFFER_H_
#include <asm/barrier.h>
#include <linux/perf_event.h>
/*
* Contract with kernel for walking the perf ring buffer from
* user space requires the following barrier pairing (quote
* from kernel/events/ring_buffer.c):
*
* Since the mmap() consumer (userspace) can run on a
* different CPU:
*
* kernel user
*
* if (LOAD ->data_tail) { LOAD ->data_head
* (A) smp_rmb() (C)
* STORE $data LOAD $data
* smp_wmb() (B) smp_mb() (D)
* STORE ->data_head STORE ->data_tail
* }
*
* Where A pairs with D, and B pairs with C.
*
* In our case A is a control dependency that separates the
* load of the ->data_tail and the stores of $data. In case
* ->data_tail indicates there is no room in the buffer to
* store $data we do not.
*
* D needs to be a full barrier since it separates the data
* READ from the tail WRITE.
*
* For B a WMB is sufficient since it separates two WRITEs,
* and for C an RMB is sufficient since it separates two READs.
*
* Note, instead of B, C, D we could also use smp_store_release()
* in B and D as well as smp_load_acquire() in C.
*
* However, this optimization does not make sense for all kernel
* supported architectures since for a fair number it would
* resolve into READ_ONCE() + smp_mb() pair for smp_load_acquire(),
* and smp_mb() + WRITE_ONCE() pair for smp_store_release().
*
* Thus for those smp_wmb() in B and smp_rmb() in C would still
* be less expensive. For the case of D this has either the same
* cost or is less expensive, for example, due to TSO x86 can
* avoid the CPU barrier entirely.
*/
static inline u64 ring_buffer_read_head(struct perf_event_mmap_page *base)
{
/*
* Architectures where smp_load_acquire() does not fallback to
* READ_ONCE() + smp_mb() pair.
*/
#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__powerpc64__) || \
defined(__ia64__) || defined(__sparc__) && defined(__arch64__)
return smp_load_acquire(&base->data_head);
#else
u64 head = READ_ONCE(base->data_head);
smp_rmb();
return head;
#endif
}
static inline void ring_buffer_write_tail(struct perf_event_mmap_page *base,
u64 tail)
{
smp_store_release(&base->data_tail, tail);
}
#endif /* _TOOLS_LINUX_RING_BUFFER_H_ */