gem5/src/sim/probe/probe.cc

131 lines
4.6 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

base: add support for probe points and common probes The probe patch is motivated by the desire to move analytical and trace code away from functional code. This is achieved by the probe interface which is essentially a glorified observer model. What this means to users: * add a probe point and a "notify" call at the source of an "event" * add an isolated module, that is being used to carry out *your* analysis (e.g. generate a trace) * register that module as a probe listener Note: an example is given for reference in src/cpu/o3/simple_trace.[hh|cc] and src/cpu/SimpleTrace.py What is happening under the hood: * every SimObject maintains has a ProbeManager. * during initialization (src/python/m5/simulate.py) first regProbePoints and the regProbeListeners is called on each SimObject. this hooks up the probe point notify calls with the listeners. FAQs: Why did you develop probe points: * to remove trace, stats gathering, analytical code out of the functional code. * the belief that probes could be generically useful. What is a probe point: * a probe point is used to notify upon a given event (e.g. cpu commits an instruction) What is a probe listener: * a class that handles whatever the user wishes to do when they are notified about an event. What can be passed on notify: * probe points are templates, and so the user can generate probes that pass any type of argument (by const reference) to a listener. What relationships can be generated (1:1, 1:N, N:M etc): * there isn't a restriction. You can hook probe points and listeners up in a 1:1, 1:N, N:M relationship. They become useful when a number of modules listen to the same probe points. The idea being that you can add a small number of probes into the source code and develop a larger number of useful analysis modules that use information passed by the probes. Can you give examples: * adding a probe point to the cpu's commit method allows you to build a trace module (outputting assembler), you could re-use this to gather instruction distribution (arithmetic, load/store, conditional, control flow) stats. Why is the probe interface currently restricted to passing a const reference: * the desire, initially at least, is to allow an interface to observe functionality, but not to change functionality. * of course this can be subverted by const-casting. What is the performance impact of adding probes: * when nothing is actively listening to the probes they should have a relatively minor impact. Profiling has suggested even with a large number of probes (60) the impact of them (when not active) is very minimal (<1%).
2014-01-24 22:29:30 +01:00
/*
* Copyright (c) 2013 ARM Limited
* All rights reserved
*
* The license below extends only to copyright in the software and shall
* not be construed as granting a license to any other intellectual
* property including but not limited to intellectual property relating
* to a hardware implementation of the functionality of the software
* licensed hereunder. You may use the software subject to the license
* terms below provided that you ensure that this notice is replicated
* unmodified and in its entirety in all distributions of the software,
* modified or unmodified, in source code or in binary form.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
* met: redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer;
* redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution;
* neither the name of the copyright holders nor the names of its
* contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
* this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
* "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
* A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
* OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
* SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
* DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
* THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
* OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*
* Authors: Matt Horsnell
*/
#include "sim/probe/probe.hh"
#include "debug/ProbeVerbose.hh"
#include "params/ProbeListenerObject.hh"
base: add support for probe points and common probes The probe patch is motivated by the desire to move analytical and trace code away from functional code. This is achieved by the probe interface which is essentially a glorified observer model. What this means to users: * add a probe point and a "notify" call at the source of an "event" * add an isolated module, that is being used to carry out *your* analysis (e.g. generate a trace) * register that module as a probe listener Note: an example is given for reference in src/cpu/o3/simple_trace.[hh|cc] and src/cpu/SimpleTrace.py What is happening under the hood: * every SimObject maintains has a ProbeManager. * during initialization (src/python/m5/simulate.py) first regProbePoints and the regProbeListeners is called on each SimObject. this hooks up the probe point notify calls with the listeners. FAQs: Why did you develop probe points: * to remove trace, stats gathering, analytical code out of the functional code. * the belief that probes could be generically useful. What is a probe point: * a probe point is used to notify upon a given event (e.g. cpu commits an instruction) What is a probe listener: * a class that handles whatever the user wishes to do when they are notified about an event. What can be passed on notify: * probe points are templates, and so the user can generate probes that pass any type of argument (by const reference) to a listener. What relationships can be generated (1:1, 1:N, N:M etc): * there isn't a restriction. You can hook probe points and listeners up in a 1:1, 1:N, N:M relationship. They become useful when a number of modules listen to the same probe points. The idea being that you can add a small number of probes into the source code and develop a larger number of useful analysis modules that use information passed by the probes. Can you give examples: * adding a probe point to the cpu's commit method allows you to build a trace module (outputting assembler), you could re-use this to gather instruction distribution (arithmetic, load/store, conditional, control flow) stats. Why is the probe interface currently restricted to passing a const reference: * the desire, initially at least, is to allow an interface to observe functionality, but not to change functionality. * of course this can be subverted by const-casting. What is the performance impact of adding probes: * when nothing is actively listening to the probes they should have a relatively minor impact. Profiling has suggested even with a large number of probes (60) the impact of them (when not active) is very minimal (<1%).
2014-01-24 22:29:30 +01:00
ProbePoint::ProbePoint(ProbeManager *manager, const std::string& _name)
: name(_name)
{
if (manager) {
manager->addPoint(*this);
}
}
ProbeListenerObject::ProbeListenerObject(const ProbeListenerObjectParams *params)
: SimObject(params),
manager(params->manager->getProbeManager())
{
}
ProbeListenerObject::~ProbeListenerObject()
{
for (auto l = listeners.begin(); l != listeners.end(); ++l) {
delete (*l);
}
listeners.clear();
}
ProbeListener::ProbeListener(ProbeManager *_manager, const std::string &_name)
: manager(_manager), name(_name)
base: add support for probe points and common probes The probe patch is motivated by the desire to move analytical and trace code away from functional code. This is achieved by the probe interface which is essentially a glorified observer model. What this means to users: * add a probe point and a "notify" call at the source of an "event" * add an isolated module, that is being used to carry out *your* analysis (e.g. generate a trace) * register that module as a probe listener Note: an example is given for reference in src/cpu/o3/simple_trace.[hh|cc] and src/cpu/SimpleTrace.py What is happening under the hood: * every SimObject maintains has a ProbeManager. * during initialization (src/python/m5/simulate.py) first regProbePoints and the regProbeListeners is called on each SimObject. this hooks up the probe point notify calls with the listeners. FAQs: Why did you develop probe points: * to remove trace, stats gathering, analytical code out of the functional code. * the belief that probes could be generically useful. What is a probe point: * a probe point is used to notify upon a given event (e.g. cpu commits an instruction) What is a probe listener: * a class that handles whatever the user wishes to do when they are notified about an event. What can be passed on notify: * probe points are templates, and so the user can generate probes that pass any type of argument (by const reference) to a listener. What relationships can be generated (1:1, 1:N, N:M etc): * there isn't a restriction. You can hook probe points and listeners up in a 1:1, 1:N, N:M relationship. They become useful when a number of modules listen to the same probe points. The idea being that you can add a small number of probes into the source code and develop a larger number of useful analysis modules that use information passed by the probes. Can you give examples: * adding a probe point to the cpu's commit method allows you to build a trace module (outputting assembler), you could re-use this to gather instruction distribution (arithmetic, load/store, conditional, control flow) stats. Why is the probe interface currently restricted to passing a const reference: * the desire, initially at least, is to allow an interface to observe functionality, but not to change functionality. * of course this can be subverted by const-casting. What is the performance impact of adding probes: * when nothing is actively listening to the probes they should have a relatively minor impact. Profiling has suggested even with a large number of probes (60) the impact of them (when not active) is very minimal (<1%).
2014-01-24 22:29:30 +01:00
{
manager->addListener(name, *this);
}
ProbeListener::~ProbeListener()
{
manager->removeListener(name, *this);
}
base: add support for probe points and common probes The probe patch is motivated by the desire to move analytical and trace code away from functional code. This is achieved by the probe interface which is essentially a glorified observer model. What this means to users: * add a probe point and a "notify" call at the source of an "event" * add an isolated module, that is being used to carry out *your* analysis (e.g. generate a trace) * register that module as a probe listener Note: an example is given for reference in src/cpu/o3/simple_trace.[hh|cc] and src/cpu/SimpleTrace.py What is happening under the hood: * every SimObject maintains has a ProbeManager. * during initialization (src/python/m5/simulate.py) first regProbePoints and the regProbeListeners is called on each SimObject. this hooks up the probe point notify calls with the listeners. FAQs: Why did you develop probe points: * to remove trace, stats gathering, analytical code out of the functional code. * the belief that probes could be generically useful. What is a probe point: * a probe point is used to notify upon a given event (e.g. cpu commits an instruction) What is a probe listener: * a class that handles whatever the user wishes to do when they are notified about an event. What can be passed on notify: * probe points are templates, and so the user can generate probes that pass any type of argument (by const reference) to a listener. What relationships can be generated (1:1, 1:N, N:M etc): * there isn't a restriction. You can hook probe points and listeners up in a 1:1, 1:N, N:M relationship. They become useful when a number of modules listen to the same probe points. The idea being that you can add a small number of probes into the source code and develop a larger number of useful analysis modules that use information passed by the probes. Can you give examples: * adding a probe point to the cpu's commit method allows you to build a trace module (outputting assembler), you could re-use this to gather instruction distribution (arithmetic, load/store, conditional, control flow) stats. Why is the probe interface currently restricted to passing a const reference: * the desire, initially at least, is to allow an interface to observe functionality, but not to change functionality. * of course this can be subverted by const-casting. What is the performance impact of adding probes: * when nothing is actively listening to the probes they should have a relatively minor impact. Profiling has suggested even with a large number of probes (60) the impact of them (when not active) is very minimal (<1%).
2014-01-24 22:29:30 +01:00
ProbeListenerObject*
ProbeListenerObjectParams::create()
{
return new ProbeListenerObject(this);
}
bool
ProbeManager::addListener(std::string pointName, ProbeListener &listener)
{
DPRINTFR(ProbeVerbose, "Probes: Call to addListener to \"%s\" on %s.\n", pointName, object->name());
bool added = false;
for (auto p = points.begin(); p != points.end(); ++p) {
if ((*p)->getName() == pointName) {
(*p)->addListener(&listener);
added = true;
}
}
if (!added) {
DPRINTFR(ProbeVerbose, "Probes: Call to addListener to \"%s\" on %s failed, no such point.\n", pointName, object->name());
}
return added;
}
bool
ProbeManager::removeListener(std::string pointName, ProbeListener &listener)
{
DPRINTFR(ProbeVerbose, "Probes: Call to removeListener from \"%s\" on %s.\n", pointName, object->name());
bool removed = false;
for (auto p = points.begin(); p != points.end(); ++p) {
if ((*p)->getName() == pointName) {
(*p)->removeListener(&listener);
removed = true;
}
}
if (!removed) {
DPRINTFR(ProbeVerbose, "Probes: Call to removeListener from \"%s\" on %s failed, no such point.\n", pointName, object->name());
}
return removed;
}
void
ProbeManager::addPoint(ProbePoint &point)
{
DPRINTFR(ProbeVerbose, "Probes: Call to addPoint \"%s\" to %s.\n", point.getName(), object->name());
for (auto p = points.begin(); p != points.end(); ++p) {
if ((*p)->getName() == point.getName()) {
DPRINTFR(ProbeVerbose, "Probes: Call to addPoint \"%s\" to %s failed, already added.\n", point.getName(), object->name());
return;
}
}
points.push_back(&point);
}