Message-ID: <bd162f5a-2efe-378a-6bde-5934f56968df@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jul 2021 09:22:50 +0800
From:   "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, acme@...nel.org,
        jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf tools: Fix pattern matching for same
 substring in different pmu type

Hi Kan,

On 7/1/2021 3:18 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/30/2021 8:09 AM, Jin Yao wrote:
>> Some different pmu types may have same substring. For example,
>> on Icelake server, we have pmu types "uncore_imc" and
>> "uncore_imc_free_running". Both pmu types have substring "uncore_imc".
>> But the parser would wrongly think they are the same pmu type.
>>
>> We enable an imc event,
>> perf stat -e uncore_imc/event=0xe3/ -a -- sleep 1
>>
>> Perf actually expands the event to:
>> uncore_imc_0/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_1/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_2/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_3/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_4/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_5/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_6/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_7/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_free_running_0/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_free_running_1/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_free_running_3/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_free_running_4/event=0xe3/
>>
>> That's because the "uncore_imc_free_running" matches the
>> pattern "uncore_imc*".
>>
>> Now we check that the last characters of pmu name is
>> '_<digit>'.
>>
>> For pattern "uncore_imc*", "uncore_imc_0" is parsed ok,
>> but "uncore_imc_free_running_0" is failed.
>>
>> Fixes: b2b9d3a3f021 ("perf pmu: Support wildcards on pmu name in dynamic pmu events")
>> Signed-off-by: Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/perf/util/pmu.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>> index 96f5ff9b5440..9ee123d77e6d 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/compiler.h>
>>   #include <linux/string.h>
>>   #include <linux/zalloc.h>
>> +#include <linux/ctype.h>
>>   #include <subcmd/pager.h>
>>   #include <sys/types.h>
>>   #include <errno.h>
>> @@ -741,6 +742,28 @@ struct pmu_events_map *__weak pmu_events_map__find(void)
>>       return perf_pmu__find_map(NULL);
>>   }
>> +static bool perf_pmu__valid_suffix(char *tok, char *pmu_name)
>> +{
>> +    char *p;
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * The pmu_name has substring tok. If the format of
> 
> The uncore PMU may have two names, e.g., uncore_cha_Y or uncore_type_X_Y. User can use either name. 
> I don't think we can assume that the pmu_name has substring tok. I think we should add a check as 
> below.
> 
> 
> @@ -746,6 +746,8 @@ static bool perf_pmu__valid_suffix(char *tok, char *pmu_name)
>   {
>       char *p;
> 
> +    if (strncmp(pmu_name, tok, strlen(tok)))
> +        return false;
>      /*
>       * The pmu_name has substring tok. If the format of
>        * pmu_name is tok or tok_digit, return true.
> 

Before calling perf_pmu__valid_suffix(), we either called the fnmatch() or called strstr(), so the 
tok must be the substring of pmu_name.

>> +     * pmu_name is tok or tok_digit, return true.
>> +     */
>> +    p = pmu_name + strlen(tok);
>> +    if (*p == 0)
>> +        return true;
>> +
>> +    if (*p != '_')
>> +        return false;
>> +
>> +    ++p;
>> +    if (*p == 0 || !isdigit(*p))
>> +        return false;
>> +
>> +    return true;
>> +}
>> +
>>   bool pmu_uncore_alias_match(const char *pmu_name, const char *name)
>>   {
>>       char *tmp = NULL, *tok, *str;
>> @@ -769,7 +792,7 @@ bool pmu_uncore_alias_match(const char *pmu_name, const char *name)
>>        */
>>       for (; tok; name += strlen(tok), tok = strtok_r(NULL, ",", &tmp)) {
>>           name = strstr(name, tok);
>> -        if (!name) {
>> +        if (!name || !perf_pmu__valid_suffix(tok, (char *)name)) {
>>               res = false;
>>               goto out;
>>           }
>> @@ -1886,5 +1909,8 @@ int perf_pmu__pattern_match(struct perf_pmu *pmu, char *pattern, char *tok)
>>       if (fnmatch(pattern, name, 0))
>>           return -1;
>> +    if (!perf_pmu__valid_suffix(tok, name))
>> +        return -1;
>> +
> 
> They are still two functions. I'm wondering if we can merge the two functions to one function, e.g., 
> perf_pmu_match()?
> 

Sorry, why do you say they are still two functions? Is it because fnmatch + perf_pmu__valid_suffix? 
But as what I explained before, we can't use fnmatch to match the pattern such as "[tok]_[digit]", 
we have to use an function to check the last characters for '_' and digits.

Or I still misunderstand for the two functions here?

> So my patch just need to simply do
>       if (!perf_pmu_match(tok, name) && !perf_pmu_match(tok, pmu->alias_name))         return -1;
> 

I see your patch is using:
(https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1624990443-168533-7-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com/)

if (!fnmatch(pattern, name, 0) ||
     (pmu->alias_name && !fnmatch(pattern, pmu->alias_name, 0))) {

}

So change the lines to:

if (!perf_pmu__match(pattern, name, NULL) ||
     (pmu->alias_name && !perf_pmu__match(pattern, pmu->alias_name, NULL))) {

}

int perf_pmu__match(char *pattern, char *name, char *tok)
{
         if (fnmatch(pattern, name, 0))
                 return -1;

         if (tok && !perf_pmu__valid_suffix(tok, name))
                 return -1;

         return 0;
}

Is that OK?

Thanks
Jin Yao


> Thanks,
> Kan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists