Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 02:05:05 +0000
From:   Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        kajoljain <kjain@...ux.ibm.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>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...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: [RFC] Issue in final aggregate value, in case of multiple events
 present in metric expression


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jin, Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: 2020年5月11日 9:12
> To: kajoljain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>; Joakim Zhang
> <qiangqing.zhang@....com>; acme@...nel.org; Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>;
> Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org; Kan Liang
> <kan.liang@...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: [RFC] Issue in final aggregate value, in case of multiple events
> present in metric expression
> 
> Hi Kajol,
> 
> On 3/24/2020 4:00 PM, kajoljain wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > 	I want to discuss one issue raised by Joakim Zhang where he mentioned
> > that, we are not getting correct result in-case of multiple events
> > present in metric expression.
> >
> > This is one example pointed by him :
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > Based on given metric expression, the sum coming correct for first
> > iteration while for rest, we won't see same addition result. But
> > in-case we have single event in metric expression, we are getting correct
> result as expected.
> >
> >
> > 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 metric event in the calculation of metric
> expression.
> >
> > So, I take same example:
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > So, there is one 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 actually using 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 the reason why for single event we 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)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > I am thinking, 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. Or something I can add to
> resolve this issue.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kajol
> >
> 
> Since you use the interval mode, can this commit fix the issue?
> 
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flore.kern
> el.org%2Flkml%2F20200420145417.6864-1-yao.jin%40linux.intel.com&amp;dat
> a=02%7C01%7Cqiangqing.zhang%40nxp.com%7Cb249ba9cac594c57208c08d7
> f5485feb%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637247563
> 504900211&amp;sdata=6eyWI915sfoZsOg9XsdaaBHaEV1wdwI26ikKxHFT4a8
> %3D&amp;reserved=0

Hi Andi, Jin Yao

Patch can fix this issue, thanks.

Best Regards,
Joakim Zhang
> Thanks
> Jin Yao

Powered by blists - more mailing lists