[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210910184027.GQ4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 20:40:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"kjain@...ux.ibm.com" <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software
events
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:27:36PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> This works great and saves 3 entries! We have the following now:
Yay!
> ID: 0 from bpf_get_branch_snapshot+18 to intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+0
is unavoidable, we need to end up in intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack()
eventually.
> ID: 1 from __brk_limit+477143934 to bpf_get_branch_snapshot+0
could be elided by having the JIT emit the call to
intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack directly, instead of laundering it
through that helper I suppose.
> ID: 2 from __brk_limit+477192263 to __brk_limit+477143880 # trampoline
> ID: 3 from __bpf_prog_enter+34 to __brk_limit+477192251
-ENOCLUE
> ID: 4 from migrate_disable+60 to __bpf_prog_enter+9
> ID: 5 from __bpf_prog_enter+4 to migrate_disable+0
I suppose we can reduce that to a single branch if we inline
migrate_disable() here, that thing unfortunately needs one branch
itself.
> ID: 6 from bpf_testmod_loop_test+20 to __bpf_prog_enter+0
And this is the first branch out of the test program, giving 7 entries
now, of which we can remove at least 2 more with a bit of elbow greace,
right?
> ID: 7 from bpf_testmod_loop_test+20 to bpf_testmod_loop_test+13
> ID: 8 from bpf_testmod_loop_test+20 to bpf_testmod_loop_test+13
>
> I will fold this in and send v7.
Excellent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists