Message-ID: <dadaf750-1096-3e4b-1d97-b3d39e66dba8@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:46:17 +0800
From:   "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, acme@...nel.org,
        jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] perf/core: Define the common branch type
 classification

Hi Michael,

Please let me summarize for the new branch type definitions.

1. We all agree these definitions:

+	PERF_BR_COND		= 1,	/* conditional */
+	PERF_BR_UNCOND		= 2,	/* unconditional */
+	PERF_BR_IND		= 3,	/* indirect */
+	PERF_BR_CALL		= 4,	/* call */
+	PERF_BR_IND_CALL	= 5,	/* indirect call */
+	PERF_BR_RET		= 6,	/* return */
+	PERF_BR_SYSCALL		= 7,	/* syscall */
+	PERF_BR_SYSRET		= 8,	/* syscall return */
+	PERF_BR_IRET		= 11,	/* return from interrupt */

2. I wish to keep following definitions for x86.

+	PERF_BR_IRQ		= 9,	/* hw interrupt/trap/fault */
+	PERF_BR_INT		= 10,	/* sw interrupt */

PERF_BR_INT is triggered by instruction "int" .
PERF_BR_IRQ is triggered by interrupts, traps, faults (the ring 0,3 
transition).

3. I can drop PERF_BR_FAR_BRANCH

4. I'd like to add following types for powerpc.

	PERF_BR_COND_CALL	/* Conditional call */
	PERF_BR_COND_RET	/* Condition return */

If you agree these new definitions, I will prepare the new patch.

Thanks
Jin Yao

On 7/10/2017 6:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com> writes:
>> On 7/10/2017 2:05 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> It is often useful to know the branch types while analyzing branch
>>>> data. For example, a call is very different from a conditional branch.
>>>>
> ...
>>>> To keep consistent on kernel and userspace and make the classification
>>>> more common, the patch adds the common branch type classification
>>>> in perf_event.h.
>>> Most of the code and doc uses "branch" but then a few these are called
>>> "jump". Can we just stick with "branch"?
>>>
>>>> PERF_BR_NONE      : unknown
>>>> PERF_BR_JCC       : conditional jump
>>>> PERF_BR_JMP       : jump
>>>> PERF_BR_IND_JMP   : indirect jump
>>> eg:
>>>
>>> PERF_BR_COND    : conditional branch
>>> PERF_BR_UNCOND  : unconditional branch
>>> PERF_BR_IND     : indirect branch
>> Call and jump are all branches. If we want to figure out which one is
>> jump and which one is call, we need the detail branch type definitions.
> Yeah I'm not saying we don't need the different types, I'm saying I'd
> rather we just called them "branch" not "jump". Just because "jump" can
> mean different things on different arches.
>
>> For example,  if we only say "PERF_BR_IND", we could not know if it's an
>> indirect jump or indirect call.
> Yes we can, PERF_BR_IND is an indirect branch, which is not a call,
> because if it was a call then it would be PERF_BR_IND_CALL.
>
>>>> PERF_BR_CALL      : call
>>>> PERF_BR_IND_CALL  : indirect call
>>>> PERF_BR_RET       : return
>>>> PERF_BR_SYSCALL   : syscall
>>>> PERF_BR_SYSRET    : syscall return
>>>> PERF_BR_IRQ       : hw interrupt/trap/fault
>>>> PERF_BR_INT       : sw interrupt
>>> I'm not sure what that means, I'm guessing on x86 it means someone
>>> executed "int" ?
>> PERF_BR_IRQ is for hw interrupt and PERF_BR_INT is for sw interrupt.
> OK, but I still don't know what that means :)
>
> What's an example of an instruction that is PERF_BR_IRQ and PERF_BR_INT ?
>
>> PERF_BR_CALL/PERF_BR_IND_CALL and PERF_BR_RET are for function call
>> (direct call and indirect call) and return.
> Yep makes sense.
>
>> PERF_BR_SYSCALL/PERF_BR_SYSRET are for syscall and syscall return.
> Yep OK.
>
>>> Is that sufficiently useful to use up a bit? I think we only have 3
>>> free?
>> Do you means 3 bits? Each bit stands for one branch type? I guess what
>> you mean is:
>>
>> PERF_BR_COND    : conditional branch
>> PERF_BR_UNCOND  : unconditional branch
>> PERF_BR_IND     : indirect branch
>>
>> But 3 branch types are not enough for us.
> What I meant was you're using 4 bits for the type, so you have 16
> possible values, and you've defined 13 of them. Meaning there are only 3
> types free.
>
> So we should try to only define branch types that are really useful, and
> keep some free for future use.
>
> Maybe PERF_BR_INT is really common on x86 and so it's important to count
> it, but like I said above I don't know what it is.
>
>>>> PERF_BR_IRET      : return from interrupt
>>>> PERF_BR_FAR_BRANCH: not generic far branch type
>>> What is a "not generic far branch" ?
>>>
>>> I don't know what that would mean on powerpc for example.
>> It's reserved for future using I think.
> OK so let's not put it in the Linux API until it's defined?
>
>>> I think the only thing we have on powerpc that's commonly used and that
>>> isn't covered above is branches that decrement a loop counter and then
>>> branch based on the result.
> ...
>> Sorry, I'm not familiar with powerpc arch. Or could you add the branch
>> type which powerpc needs?
> These are good:
>
> +	PERF_BR_COND		= 1,	/* conditional */
> +	PERF_BR_UNCOND		= 2,	/* unconditional */
> +	PERF_BR_IND		= 3,	/* indirect */
> +	PERF_BR_CALL		= 4,	/* call */
> +	PERF_BR_IND_CALL	= 5,	/* indirect call */
> +	PERF_BR_RET		= 6,	/* return */
>
> These we wouldn't use currently, but make sense:
>
> +	PERF_BR_SYSCALL		= 7,	/* syscall */
> +	PERF_BR_SYSRET		= 8,	/* syscall return */
> +	PERF_BR_IRET		= 11,	/* return from interrupt */
>
> These I'm not so sure about, I don't really know what they would map to
> for us:
>
> +	PERF_BR_IRQ		= 9,	/* hw interrupt/trap/fault */
> +	PERF_BR_INT		= 10,	/* sw interrupt */
>
> And sounds like this should be dropped for now:
>
> +	PERF_BR_FAR_BRANCH	= 12,	/* not generic far branch type */
>
> The branch types you haven't covered which might be useful for us are:
>
> 	PERF_BR_COND_CALL	/* Conditional call */
> 	PERF_BR_COND_RET	/* Condition return */
>
>
> cheers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists