[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d91a1b98-2c2b-a961-543f-d540b3c7a146@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:38:47 +0000
From: Andrew Kilroy <andrew.kilroy@....com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...nel.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] perf arm64: Implement --topdown with metrics
Ian, John, thanks for the feedback.
On 15/12/2021 10:52, John Garry wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>>> const struct pmu_event *metricgroup__find_metric(const char *metric,
>>> const struct
>>> pmu_events_map *map);
>>> int metricgroup__parse_groups_test(struct evlist *evlist,
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/topdown.c b/tools/perf/util/topdown.c
>>> index 1081b20f9891..57c0c5f2c6bd 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/topdown.c
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/topdown.c
>>> @@ -56,3 +56,9 @@ __weak bool arch_topdown_sample_read(struct evsel
>>> *leader __maybe_unused)
>>> {
>>> return false;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +__weak bool arch_topdown_use_json_metrics(void)
>>> +{
>
> AFAICS, only x86 supports topdown today and that is because they have
> special kernel topdown events exposed for the kernel CPU PMU driver. So
> other architectures - not only arm - would need rely on metricgroups for
> topdown support. So let's make this generic for all archs.
>
>> I like this extension! I've ranted in the past about weak symbols
>> breaking with archives due to lazy loading [1]. In this case
>> tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/topdown.c has no other symbols within it
>> and so the weak symbol has an extra chance of being linked
>> incorrectly. We could add a new command line of --topdown-json to
>> avoid this, but there seems little difference in doing this over just
>> doing '-M TopDownL1'.
>
>
>> Is it possible to use the json metric approach
>> for when the CPU version fails?
>
> I think that's a good idea.
>
Taking a look.
> In addition we could also add a --topdown arg to force using JSON
> metricgroups.
>
What arg do think would be supplied?
> Did you actually test this patch? I have something experimental working
> from some time ago, and it was more complicated than this. I need to
> check the code again...
>
I got stats back from this implementation, yes. Let me know if there's
things my patch isn't catering for.
> Thanks,
> John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists