• Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 119 subscribers
  • Views 4524 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

ARM PMU - Event 0x56 - No instructions for issue (A8)

Prabindh Sundareson
Note: This was originally posted on 30th October 2012 at http://forums.arm.com

[font=Arial][size=2]I am using peemuperf (https://github.com/prabindh/peemuperf/blob/master/README.md) to get various cache profile results from ARM PMU, and some specific EMIF counters available in TI processors. I am currently looking at one of the A8 processors. In ARM Performance monitoring unit, the SEL field (event ID) of [/size][/font]EVTSEL register can be used to select the event ID.[size=2]  In this, 0x56 is defined to indicate "[/size]0x56 ==> Increment for every cycle that no instructions are available for issue[size=2]". [/size]

  [font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font]

  [font=Arial][size=2]With the goal of finding cycles lost because CPU is waiting for I-cache miss and refill to be available, when 0x56 is used, I see some correlation, but with below issues:[/size][/font]

  [font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font]

  [size=2]-          [/size][font=Arial][size=2]At no-load conditions (no UI or other application, CPU load being negligible), this counter gives cycles equal to that of CPU clock speed. In a 720 MHz processor, I see 720M cycles. This does not match with the description. What is the explanation ?[/size][/font]

  [font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font]

  [size=2]-          [/size][font=Arial][size=2]At high loads, there is a more meaningful number coming out of the counter, but still it appears to be high, that indicates to me that this cycle count is not just that of CPU waiting for I-cache refills.[/size][/font]

  [font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font]

  [font=Arial][size=2]Is there a better explanation/ validated results available ?[/size][/font]

  [font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font]

Parents
  • Note: This was originally posted on 30th October 2012 at http://forums.arm.com


    wfi/wfe/cache miss are all valid reasons for the counter to increment.


    Thanks. Another query is on the 0x1 event ID"[size="2"]- with the definition "Instruction fetch  that causes a refill at the lowest level of instruction or unified cache"  [/size]  [size="2"]==> What is the size of the refill here  "" is there a way to determine the number of line requests made to the SOC from  the cache controller ? Also, what is the lowest level of cache referred to here  "" is it L1 or L2 ? I presume L2 but need  confirmation[/size]

    Thanks,
Reply
  • Note: This was originally posted on 30th October 2012 at http://forums.arm.com


    wfi/wfe/cache miss are all valid reasons for the counter to increment.


    Thanks. Another query is on the 0x1 event ID"[size="2"]- with the definition "Instruction fetch  that causes a refill at the lowest level of instruction or unified cache"  [/size]  [size="2"]==> What is the size of the refill here  "" is there a way to determine the number of line requests made to the SOC from  the cache controller ? Also, what is the lowest level of cache referred to here  "" is it L1 or L2 ? I presume L2 but need  confirmation[/size]

    Thanks,
Children
No data