| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 12:43:32 +0530
From: kajoljain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anju T Sudhakar <anju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tools/perf/metricgroup: Fix printing event names of
metric group with multiple events incase of overlapping events
On 3/20/20 12:17 PM, Joakim Zhang wrote:
>
> [...]
>>>>> Hi Kajol,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure if it is good to ask a question here :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I encountered a perf metricgroup issue, the result is incorrect when
>>>>> the
>>>> metric includes more than 2 events.
>>>>>
>>>>> git log --oneline tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
>>>>> 3635b27cc058 perf metricgroup: Fix printing event names of metric
>>>>> group with multiple events f01642e4912b perf metricgroup: Support
>>>>> multiple events for metricgroup
>>>>> 287f2649f791 perf metricgroup: Scale the metric result
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a simple test, below is the JSON file and result.
>>>>> [
>>>>> {
>>>>> "PublicDescription": "Calculate DDR0 bus actual
>>>>> utilization
>>>> which vary from DDR0 controller clock frequency",
>>>>> "BriefDescription": "imx8qm: ddr0 bus actual utilization",
>>>>> "MetricName": "imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util",
>>>>> "MetricExpr": "( imx8_ddr0\\/read\\-cycles\\/ +
>>>> imx8_ddr0\\/write\\-cycles\\/ )",
>>>>> "MetricGroup": "i.MX8QM_DDR0_BUS_UTIL"
>>>>> }
>>>>> ]
>>>>> ./perf stat -I 1000 -M imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>>>>> # time counts unit events
>>>>> 1.000104250 16720 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>>>> # 22921.0 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>>>>> 1.000104250 6201
>> imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>>>>> 2.000525625 8316 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>>>> # 12785.5 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>>>>> 2.000525625 2738
>> imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>>>>> 3.000819125 1056 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>>>> # 4136.7 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>>>>> 3.000819125 303
>> imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>>>>> 4.001103750 6260 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>>>> # 9149.8 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>>>>> 4.001103750 2317
>> imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>>>>> 5.001392750 2084 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>>>> # 4516.0 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>>>>> 5.001392750 601
>> imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see that only the first result is correct, could this be
>>>>> reproduced at
>>>> you side?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Joakim,
>>>> Will try to look into it from my side.
>>>
>>
>>> Thanks Kajol for your help, I look into this issue, but don't know how to fix it.
>>>
>>> The results are always correct if signal event used in "MetricExpr" with "-I"
>> parameters, but the results are incorrect when more than one events used in
>> "MetricExpr".
>>>
>>
>> Hi Joakim,
>> So, I try to look into this issue and understand the flow. From my
>> understanding, whenever we do
>> calculation of metric expression we don't use exact count we are getting.
>> Basically we use mean value of each event in the calculation of metric
>> expression.
>>
>> So, I am taking same example you refer.
>>
>> Metric Event: imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>> MetricExpr": "( imx8_ddr0\\/read\\-cycles\\/ + imx8_ddr0\\/write\\-cycles\\/ )"
>>
>> command#: ./perf stat -I 1000 -M imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>>
>> # time counts unit events
>> 1.000104250 16720 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>> # 22921.0 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>> 1.000104250 6201 imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>> 2.000525625 8316 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>> # 12785.5 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>> 2.000525625 2738 imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>> 3.000819125 1056 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>> # 4136.7 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>> 3.000819125 303 imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>> 4.001103750 6260 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>> # 9149.8 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>> 4.001103750 2317 imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>> 5.001392750 2084 imx8_ddr0/read-cycles/
>> # 4516.0 imx8qm-ddr0-bus-util
>> 5.001392750 601 imx8_ddr0/write-cycles/
>>
>> If you see we have a function called 'update_stats' in file util/stat.c where we
>> do this calculation and updating stats->mean value. And this mean value is
>> what we are using actually in our metric expression calculation.
>>
>> We call this function in each iteration where we update stats->mean and
>> stats->n for each event.
>> But one weird issue is, for very first event, stat->n is always 1 that is why we
>> are getting mean same as count.
>> So this is the reason for single event you get exact aggregate of metric
>> expression.
>> So doesn't matter how many events you have in your metric expression, every
>> time you take exact count for first one and normalized value for rest which is
>> weird.
>>
>> According to update_stats function: We are updating mean as:
>>
>> stats->mean += delta / stats->n where, delta = val - stats->mean.
>>
>> If we take write-cycles here. Initially mean = 0 and n = 1.
>>
>> 1st iteration: n=1, write cycle : 6201 and mean = 6201 (Final agg value: 16720
>> + 6201 = 22921) 2nd iteration: n=2, write cycles: 6201 + (2738 - 6201)/2 =
>> 4469.5 (Final aggr value: 8316 + 4469.5 = 12785.5) 3rd iteration: n=3, write
>> cycles: 4469.5 + (303 - 4469.5)/3 = 3080.6667 (Final aggr value: 1056 +
>> 3080.6667 = 4136.7)
>>
>> Andi and Jiri, I am not sure if its expected behavior. I mean shouldn't we either
>> take mean value of each event or take n as 1 for each event. And one more
>> question, Should we add an option to say whether user want exact aggregate
>> or this normalize aggregate to remove the confusion? I try to find it out if we
>> already have one but didn't get.
>> Please let me know if my understanding is fine.
>
> Hi Kajol,
>
> Sorry, your reply was buried in a sea of emails, it comes into my eyes when I searched any feedback from you. Much thanks for your great details!!!!!
>
> I can quite understand what you explained. As a user, I think we always want to get the exact result according to the metric expression.
>
> Can you take this case as an example then send out a formal email into mailing list to reflect this weird issue, more people can participate and discuss about it. Or you need me clear up and sent out the email?
> This could attract maintainers' attention.
>
Hi Joakim,
Yes you are right, I will send separate mail on lkml. That way it will be better.
Thanks,
Kajol
> Best Regards,
> Joakim Zhang
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists