linaro-dev

linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org

4332 discussions

by Deao, Douglas

Sorry it took a while to get back to you guys. I was visiting customers last week. Most of my comments are just highlighting the differences between TI's STM 1.0 driver and ST-E's STM 1.0 driver, but there are a few questions, observations and suggestions. At the end I included some discussion on TI's meta data and OST header requirements. I have not had a chance to look at your actual implementation yet. Did you do anything to abstract the actual HW transport ports and control registers from the higher level driver functions? I realize there is a lot here to work through so if you would rather schedule a conference call to talk through the differences I can do that. I would like to start work on a Linaro (Unified) STM Spec next week if I can get feedback from everybody over the next few days. I will be out of the office on 5/27 and 5/31. I am especially interested in details of what you guys have in mind for a "common trace framework to receive STM drivers". If by framework you mean well defined APIs that are implemented for specific devices, then I think we are in agreement. What Michael and I have talked about is a common STM user mode experience across all Linaro supported devices, making Linux user mode code 100% portable between our devices. ST-E STM Driver stm-trace.txt review: 1. Software Overview In your "Software Overview" it states: "The end of data packet is marked by a time stamp on latest byte(s) only." I assume that user messages can be made up of any number of bytes, half-words, words or longs (what ever is most efficient) and you simply terminate the last element of the message with a time-stamp - right? In the TI STM implementation a message can be any number and combination of bytes, half-words, or word transfers terminated with a time-stamp on the last element. In addition to that we also add an OST header to a message. (See below for discussion on OST header). 2. Lossless/Lossy modes. TI only supports lossless mode for sw generated messages and is enforced in our hw implementation. Lossy mode is reserved for true hw messages. I did not notice that you documented a way to modify this through the debugfs API or IOCTLS. I am kind of thinking that may be ok since this is really a hw configuration choice in your case, but in the TI case the user does not get to make that choice. 3. Channel Assignment TI makes the assignment with mknod using the minor number to assign a fixed channel. This allows the user mode application to overload the channel usage for categorizing data (not my idea). I think we see the error of our ways here and will be ok with a dynamic channel allocation. I am thinking that for each unique pid a channel should be assigned when the device is opened. I would guess you are keeping a channel table around and write() just checks the table for a pid assignment (no time to look at your implementation yet), if none is found the first free channel is used. If you moved this function back to open then you could do the IOCTL STM_GET_CHANNEL_NO anytime, not just after the first write. In write how do you flag an error if you exhaust the number of available channels? 4. Kernel API TI does not support a Kernel API (yet). I can see that the Alloc/Free and File IO type functions are useful and should be standard. Not sure what you mean by "lockless" trace functions? It looks like your "low level atomic trace functions for 1, 2, 4 or 8 bytes" is similar to TI's binary library functions (not supported by the TI STM Driver). This is what we use the OST header for, allowing our tool chain to differentiate between different message formats, rather than just assuming the data is a simple stream of bytes. 5. Debugfs APIs. TI used a different approach. The tool-chain on the host provides all the transport setup through JTAG, so our driver does not support setting up the actual STM data export (number of pins and clock rate). In our case device transport parameters must match the host receiver's collection setup. With your approach the user can change the clock rate and export pin width effectively at any time. Our tools actually go through a calibration process during initialization so any changes to the device's transport setup (clock rate, number of pins data exported on) would cause the TI tool chain a lot of grief. There are some parameters we know we need to add (like master enables). This are currently also handled by the host tools. TI's STM module allows up to 4 SW masters to be enabled (with id masks that can be used to enable multiple masters from the same group) and 4 HW masters that can be enabled at the same time as the SW masters. If the user tries to enable more than the HW allows do you have a mechanism to flag an error? I don't have a lot of experience with debugfs but I am assuming it's primarily used for allowing scripts to configure a driver (like in your example) or extract information. We may want to define a standard set of debugfs options whose implementation is vendor specific. But that raises some questions: - How do we deal with options that don't make sense for a specific vendor? Maybe just doing nothing is acceptable or do we want to provide a discovery mechanism? - Would user scripts then also be vendor specific? We should probably make an effort to avoid this. A discovery mechanism may allow user mode scripts to be generic. 6. Mapped Channels I believe the TI hw transport channel mapping is compatible. In the TI case a channel is mapped into two spaces, the first half is for non-timestamp transfers and the second half is for time-stamped transfers. When we write a message (from a user mode write call for example) we simply write all the data except the last element through the non-timestamp port, and then the last element is written to the time-stamped port. So I think we could be compatible here. With that said I am not sure about exposing all channels to a user mode library. You are relying on the library to use the convention of getting a free channel from the driver to make sure there are no conflicts. If the channel assignment is made when you open the device, you could conceivably map just the address space needed for the single channel, thus eliminating the need to get a free channel from the driver. In the TI case a single channel's transport mapping is 4K bytes, which matches the typical PAGE_SIZE. I realize not all hw implementations will match up with the PAGE_SIZE, which may be why you simply map all the channels back to user space. Since free channels can become busy rapidly, maybe a better convention would be to simply use another device node if the user wants the library STM data to be transmitted on a different STM channel than the current process. This may be a case where providing a mechanism (see meta data discussion below) to allow channels to be named for the toolchain may be a good idea (provide task name and process id). 7. 8-byte Writes TI does not support 64-bit writes with our STM 1.0 module. We may need an IOCTL to get the largest transfer supported for the mmap case. For all other cases this should just be hidden in the device dependent code. 8. Kernel Internal Usage I like the idea of having dedicated support in the driver for common kernel logging. Any ideas on how you would support kernel STM channel assignments without hard-coding? We may need a mechanism to communicate the definition of each hard-coded channel to our tools. The following are TI specific: 9. Data protection In SMP systems if the processor is switched a new master is generated (in some TI devices). So we protect the data with a mutex to guarantee a complete message is generated by the same master. 10. Meta Data Our user mode HW libraries use meta data to transport data needed to process the HW profiling STM messages. Items like processor speed, sampling rate, processing options, ... (just a predefined byte buffer our tool-chain understands). The meta data is currently broadcasted on a dedicated channel (255), which conflicts with your hard-coded channel for logging printk output. So we will need to resolve hard-coded conflicts. We need the driver to support registration and transport of the meta data on demand from the library (when the HW master is disabled, in case the collection buffer is small and circular). I am thinking an IOCTL could be used to register meta data and then the data simply broadcast on a STM channel (will need to figure out which one) when the HW master is enabled and disabled. Meta data transmission is problematic for circular buffers (like ETB's) thus the reason for also sending meta data when a hw master is disabled. SW masters are not typically disabled, and our HW does not provide a transmission byte count (remember there are HW messages also being generated in the TI case). So there is no way from a driver we can tell when the recoding buffer will wrap even if the user told us the buffer size. I am thinking the best solution would be to force the user to gracefully disable the channel to get any sw channel meta data provided by the driver. TI supports three cases of data capture: - DTC/Host collection (stop on buffer full) - DTC/Host collection (circular buffer) - ETB/on-chip collection (circular buffer) Of if the user is at a point in their code where they know thery will stop recoding on the hOst or ETB, we provide an IOCTL that simply disables all channels. In the ETB case we may want to simply disable any open STM channels when the user decides to stop recording as a fail safe mechanism. Note: Periodic transmission of meta data into a small circular buffer will not work well. In cases where the data is sparse the buffer will simply be filled with meta data rather than useful data. 11. OST Headers Adding an OST header to each message is a requirement for compatibility with TI's toolchain. There are a couple of ways to approach: Completely hidden from the user - The device specific code will know if the header is necessary. On a write, prior to the copy from user space, the device independent code would have to make a call to get a properly sized memory buffer from the device dependent code that would include the header. User enabled - Provide an IOCTL that allows the user to put the driver in a tool-chain specific mode (like add OST headers). Regards, Doug Deao ________________________________________ From: Philippe Langlais [mailto:philippe.langlais@linaro.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 3:08 AM To: Deao, Douglas Cc: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: STM at UDS-Budapest Hi Doug, On STE ux500 platforms we have the same STM module (follow MIDP STP 1.0), I have already posted our current implementation to the LKML and Linaro ML, it's very similar to your proposal. I can't be present to the Linaro summit but Linus Walleij can replace me for this topic, he proposes to write a common trace framework to receive STM drivers. Attached all our current proposal and work around STM. Regards Philippe Langlais ST-Ericsson On 3 May 2011 00:42, Deao, Douglas <d-deao(a)ti.com> wrote: I am hosting an introductory session on System Trace at the summit. TI's System Trace Module (STM) provides a common protocol for instrumentation messages across multiple cores and system level hardware profiling in complex SoCs. Attached is a whitepaper for background reading. Looking forward to meeting you at the summit. Regards, Doug Deao Texas Instruments _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev(a)lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev

15 years

Renaming miscellaneous python projects that currently abuse "linaro"

by Zygmunt Krynicki

Hi. I was wondering if anyone would object to namespace cleanup of our python projects. Here is my proposed list of changes: For "linaro-django-pagination" This project is a fork of dead/unmaintained django-pagination. The upstream author has rejected my requests to hand over ownership. Proposed names: -> django-good-pagination -> django-linaro-pagination For "linaro-django-xmlrpc" This project is a generic-purpose, written-from-scratch, XML-RPC component for django. There are numerous similar projects out there, including django-xmlrpc Proposed names: -> django-secure-xmlrpc -> django-web-api (if we include JSON-RPC/ajax in the future) -> django-linaro-xmlrpc For "linaro-json": This project started as a huge collection of tools for JSON but was later on refocused on one important thing - schema validation. Proposed names: -> json-schema-validator -> json-schema (still unused on pypi :-) For "linaro-dashboard-bundle" This is the library that encapsulates the official dashboard bundle (that sounds important) schema and assorted tools. Since now we have LAVA I wanted to take the chance and give it a better name Proposed names: -> lava-bundle -> lava-dashboard-bundle -> lava-test-container I would like to know what you think. If I missed anything please let me know. Thanks ZK

15 years

The Linaro monthly release cycle

by Nicolas Pitre

As you might know already, Linaro is moving to a monthly release of technology preview for most of the components being worked on. This obviously includes the kernel, so some coordination amongst all people involved is required. It was decided that those releases would happen on the last Thursday of each month, so for the 11.06 release this is June 30th. To give a chance for the kernel to be stable by that time, I'll effectively freeze it one week earlier i.e. on June 23rd for the 11.06 release. The last week before the actual release should be dedicated to testing and bug fixing only. So... what this means is that you need to send me any patches and/or pull requests for the Linaro kernel at least _8_ DAYS BEFORE THE RELEASE. Obviously, you can send me patches way before that deadline as well, which would be highly appreciated. Today is June 14th, meaning that there are less than 9 days left (less so if you don't include the weekend). We also hope that everyone will try to perform a bit more testing than usual during the last week, and also get involved in bug fixing activities until the release. If you have some concerns about this please let me know so we can find ways to improve things. Hopefully we'll get up to speed with this pace and there won't be any major problems. Nicolas

15 years

[PATCH android/bionic] strftime: Use snprintf() instead of sprintf()

by Jim Huang

Code Review: https://review.source.android.com/#change,23997

15 years

[GIT PULL] U300 and Ux500 patches for the arm-soc tree

by Linus Walleij

Hi Arnd, These are a number of trivial-and-simple patches that have been reviewed on the LAKML mailing list. They are independent patches that are mostly self-descriptive. The clock added for TWD play with a patch that will be merged out-of-order with this one, that makes the timer core reschedule events on the localtimer when the CPU changes frequency. Marc Zyngier is carrying that patch as part of the localtimer consolidation attempt. There might be more coming, but this is good to pull in as a base for the soc tree. The following changes since commit 56299378726d5f2ba8d3c8cbbd13cb280ba45e4f: Linux 3.0-rc4 (2011-06-20 20:25:46 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-stericsson.git for-arnd Linus Walleij (8): mach-ux500: add HREFv60 Kconfig option mach-ux500: fix HREFv60 regression mach-ux500: correct MMC/SDI parameters mach-ux500: activate USB in the U8500 defconfig mach-ux500: complete regulator constraints for MOP500 board mach-ux500: register a clock for the SMP TWD mach-u300: cleanup clockevent code mach-u300: set apropriate FIFO trigger levels Mattias Wallin (1): mach-ux500: iomap PRCMU TCDM memory arch/arm/configs/u8500_defconfig | 6 +++- arch/arm/mach-u300/spi.c | 4 +- arch/arm/mach-u300/timer.c | 33 ++++++----------- arch/arm/mach-ux500/Kconfig | 8 ++++- arch/arm/mach-ux500/board-mop500-regulators.c | 9 ++++- arch/arm/mach-ux500/board-mop500-sdi.c | 42 +++++++++++++++------ arch/arm/mach-ux500/board-mop500.c | 3 ++ arch/arm/mach-ux500/clock.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/mach-ux500/cpu-db5500.c | 1 + 9 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

15 years

[PATCH powertop2.0] Modification to fix the removal of lock_depth field

by Amit Daniel Kachhap

lock_depth field is removed from the power frequency events in the new linux kernel(2.6.38 onwards). So this creates issue to retrieve the lower members of the trace data. To fix this problem 2 separate structures are created and their use depends upon the format of the power_frequency events. These changes have been tested to work fine with both old and new kernels as well as on x86 and ARM platform. Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap(a)linaro.org> --- This patch is for powertop2.0 and fixes the issue of frequency reported as always 0 in kernel from 2.6.38 onwards. cpu/cpu.cpp | 7 +--- perf/perf_bundle.cpp | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpu/cpu.cpp b/cpu/cpu.cpp index b901b87..1193d7b 100644 --- a/cpu/cpu.cpp +++ b/cpu/cpu.cpp @@ -742,11 +742,8 @@ void w_display_cpu_pstates(void) struct power_entry { -#ifndef __i386__ - int dummy; -#endif - int64_t type; - int64_t value; + uint64_t type; + uint64_t value; } __attribute__((packed)); diff --git a/perf/perf_bundle.cpp b/perf/perf_bundle.cpp index 2276c3a..f4c8912 100644 --- a/perf/perf_bundle.cpp +++ b/perf/perf_bundle.cpp @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ #include <algorithm> #include <string.h> #include <stdint.h> +#include <dirent.h> #include "perf_bundle.h" #include "perf_event.h" @@ -110,11 +111,30 @@ void perf_bundle::add_event(const char *event_name) } } } - +static int lock_depth = 0; void perf_bundle::start(void) { unsigned int i; class perf_event *ev; + char line[1023]; + FILE *file; + char filename[PATH_MAX]; + + /*check the format of power_frequency event*/ + strcpy(filename, + "/sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/power/power_frequency/format"); + if (!lock_depth) { + file = fopen(filename, "r"); + if (file) { + while (fgets(line, 1023,file) != NULL) { + if (strstr(line, "lock_depth")) { + lock_depth = 1; + break; + } + } + fclose(file); + } + } for (i = 0; i < events.size(); i++) { ev = events[i]; @@ -154,34 +174,57 @@ void perf_bundle::clear(void) records.resize(0); } - -struct trace_entry { +/*Trace entry for the common fields of perf events*/ +struct trace_entry_common { uint64_t time; uint32_t cpu; uint32_t res; __u32 size; +} __attribute__((packed)); + +/*Trace entry for the fields specific to each perf events. +* lock_depth field to support old kernels*/ +struct trace_data_lockdepth { unsigned short type; unsigned char flags; unsigned char preempt_count; int pid; int lock_depth; +#ifndef __i386__ + int filler; +#endif } __attribute__((packed));; +/*Trace entry for the fields specific to each perf events*/ +struct trace_data_normal { + unsigned short type; + unsigned char flags; + unsigned char preempt_count; + int pid; +} __attribute__((packed));; -struct perf_sample { +struct perf_sample_normal { struct perf_event_header header; - struct trace_entry trace; + struct trace_entry_common trace_common; + struct trace_data_normal trace_data; unsigned char data[0]; } __attribute__((packed)); +struct perf_sample_lockdepth { + struct perf_event_header header; + struct trace_entry_common trace_common; + struct trace_data_lockdepth trace_data; + unsigned char data[0]; +} __attribute__((packed));; + static uint64_t timestamp(perf_event_header *event) { - struct perf_sample *sample; + struct perf_sample_lockdepth *sample; if (event->type != PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE) return 0; - sample = (struct perf_sample *)event; + sample = (struct perf_sample_lockdepth *)event; #if 0 int i; @@ -207,7 +250,7 @@ static uint64_t timestamp(perf_event_header *event) printf("%02x ", *(x+i)); printf("\n"); #endif - return sample->trace.time; + return sample->trace_common.time; } @@ -235,16 +278,35 @@ void perf_bundle::process(void) sort(records.begin(), records.end(), event_sort_function); for (i = 0; i < records.size(); i++) { - struct perf_sample *sample; - - sample = (struct perf_sample *)records[i]; - if (!sample) - continue; - - if (sample->header.type != PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE) - continue; - - handle_trace_point(sample->trace.type, &sample->data, sample->trace.cpu, sample->trace.time, sample->trace.flags); + /*Check for lock_depth */ + if (lock_depth) { + struct perf_sample_lockdepth *sample = + (struct perf_sample_lockdepth *)records[i]; + if (!sample) + continue; + + if (sample->header.type != PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE) + continue; + + handle_trace_point(sample->trace_data.type, + &sample->data, sample->trace_common.cpu, + sample->trace_common.time, + sample->trace_data.flags); + } + else { + struct perf_sample_normal *sample = + (struct perf_sample_normal *)records[i]; + if (!sample) + continue; + + if (sample->header.type != PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE) + continue; + + handle_trace_point(sample->trace_data.type, + &sample->data, sample->trace_common.cpu, + sample->trace_common.time, + sample->trace_data.flags); + } } } -- 1.7.1

15 years

Re: implementing queues safely in (generic) SQL

by Zygmunt Krynicki

W dniu 21.06.2011 07:30, Michael Hudson-Doyle pisze: > Hi guys (who else should I be emailing this sort of thing to?), > > After making rapid progress on the scheduler last week, today I've hit a > bit of a stumbling block. Basically, we're implementing a queue in SQL > with this sort of pseudo-code: > > 1) look for a job we could run > 2) mark it as running > 3) commit > > There's an obvious race condition here if two requests overlap which > could result in the same job running on two boards. I know how to > prevent this in two ways for postgres: > > 1) This way: http://johtopg.blogspot.com/2010/12/queues-in-sql.html > 2) Relying on SERIALIZABLE isolation level and retrying request that > fail to commit (this is what Launchpad does) 3) I never tried this solution and I don't know how this is different from 2) but let's try this. Hopefully it would still work on SQLite. A Queue has to operations: get() and put(). Put appends an item to the queue, get removes an item from the front of the list. CREATE TABLE queue id PRIMARY KEY, aid UNIQUE INTEGER, ... Put is trivial, as in the code you linked to, just insert, keep the helper 'aid' (allocation ID) NULL. Get is trickier as we need to make sure that no two consumers allocate the same queue item. Regardless of isolation levels you use a unique constraint will always work, only one client would succeed in getting the UPDATE query below to work. The other will get an IntegrityError and can try again (to fetch another item). # First we need to get an allocation id. We could use something different here (like a sequence or some other good identifier). In this example I'll just take next largest existing 'aid'. SELECT IFNULL(MAX(aid)+1, 1) AS new_aid FROM QUEUE; # Then we need to allocate a row for processing. We do that by trying # to update it with the 'aid' we computed above. We only update one row # - the oldest one (here designated by a row with the smallest ID) that # is still not allocated. UPDATE queue SET aid=new_aid WHERE id=(SELECT MIN(id) FROM queue WHERE aid IS NULL); > The problem is that in tests we run against SQLite, and I don't know if > either technique really applies to django+sqlite (the first approach has > postgres specific syntax and for the second, django appears to really > really want to run in autocommit mode). Fortunately django almost never runs in autocommit mode. There is an implicit transaction around the whole request. It is easy to control the transaction processing around a piece of code, see [1]. On PostgreSQL we also need to properly implement handling of IngegrityError as it differs significantly from SQLite [2] > This will probably work out OK, but we won't be able to test the > postgres variant. The test script that was in dashboard tree tested the app in sqlite and postgresql. If you want to test that the queue is indeed working let's move it to a dedicated app (django reusability :-) setup a small instance on postgress and bombard it with queries. > Does this sound sane to you guys? I would rather have a single solution for both databases if possible. If not then perhaps SQL is not the right way to implement a queue but that would significantly complicate our work. CCing to linaro-dev, somebody might be interested. Best regards ZK [1]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/transactions/?from=olddocs#… [2]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/transactions/?from=olddocs#…

15 years

Meeting request

by Ashish Jangam

Hi Eric, I recently saw your mail to Dajun, on your people eagerness to get the patches upstream soon. We also hold the same vision to get the patches upstream as quick as possible. In this regard we like to have a discussion so please let us know your convenient time. Please note that as of now we do not have any technical issues on patches but there is a need to understand the patch submission process so we can focus our discussion accordingly. Regards, Ashish +91-9869402911

15 years

RFC: Community Mumble

by Joey Stanford

Hi Gang, In the past few days I've received a few requests to allow community members access to our Mumble server. I don't feel comfortable adding in the large and open linaro-community team so I am considering making a linaro-community-mumble team to allow for access. Right now you have to be in ~linaro to have access to Mumble. 1) I'd like to hear your comments on this, especially if you have alternative suggestions. 2) If there are community members who should have mumble access, can you please send me their Launchpad IDs so I can start assembling a list. Thanks, Joey

15 years

Clarify Licensing terms of build/tools/{isprelinked,soslim,apriori} in Android source tree

by Jim Huang

Hello list, I am not sure if android-platform@ is the right place to discuss licensing terms in Android or not. Please ignore the post if it was mistaken. Recently, we at Linaro are trying to integrate gcc-linaro[1] into Android build system as the optional toolchain optimized for latest ARM cores. We encounter some unknown prelinker issues, and it is an opportunities for us to look into the implementations of relevant utilities in Android. However, I am a bit confused about the licensing terms of some packages. libelfcopy[2], derived from some parts in binutils, provides the facilities about DWARF/ELF, and it is quite obvious that libelfcopy is licensed under GNU GPL version 2+ as the file "MODULE_LICENSE_GPL" denotes. There are three system tools depending on libelfcopy: - isprelinked - soslim - apriori build/tools$ grep -r libelfcopy * apriori/Android.mk:LOCAL_STATIC_LIBRARIES := libelfcopy libelf libebl #dl isprelinked/Android.mk:LOCAL_STATIC_LIBRARIES := libelfcopy libelf libebl libebl_arm #dl soslim/Android.mk:LOCAL_STATIC_LIBRARIES := libelfcopy libelf libebl libebl_arm #dl These tools are linking libelfcopy statically, which explicitly complies with the licensing terms of GNU GPL. But, after checking the source files (*.[ch]), no license term is claimed.[3] The proper declaration should put file "MODULE_LICENSE_GPL" into individual directories at least. Is my understanding correct? Sincerely, Jim Huang Android Team, Linaro [1] https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro [2] http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/external/elfcopy.git;a=summary [3] http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/build.git;a=summary

15 years

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-dev