[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YcGJJ2g+i5qWea7d@krava>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:58:31 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf pmu: Fix event list for uncore PMUs
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:53:37PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> Commit 0e0ae8742207 ("perf list: Display hybrid PMU events with cpu type")
> changed the list for uncore PMUs, such that duplicate aliases are now
> listed per PMU (which they should not be), like:
>
> ./perf list
> ...
> unc_cbo_cache_lookup.any_es
> [Unit: uncore_cbox L3 Lookup any request that access cache and found
> line in E or S-state]
> unc_cbo_cache_lookup.any_es
> [Unit: uncore_cbox L3 Lookup any request that access cache and found
> line in E or S-state]
> unc_cbo_cache_lookup.any_i
> [Unit: uncore_cbox L3 Lookup any request that access cache and found
> line in I-state]
> unc_cbo_cache_lookup.any_i
> [Unit: uncore_cbox L3 Lookup any request that access cache and found
> line in I-state]
> ...
>
> Notice how the events are listed twice.
>
> The named commit changed how we remove duplicate events, in that events
> for different PMUs are not treated as duplicates. I suppose this is to
> handle how "Each hybrid pmu event has been assigned with a pmu name".
>
> Fix uncore PMU alias list by also checking if events with PMU name are not
> cpu PMUs.
>
> Fixes: 0e0ae8742207 ("perf list: Display hybrid PMU events with cpu type")
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
> ---
> It would be helpful if someone with some of these hybrid CPU systems could
> test this change, thanks!
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
> index 6ae58406f4fc..392f6a36418b 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
> @@ -1659,6 +1659,24 @@ bool is_pmu_core(const char *name)
> return !strcmp(name, "cpu") || is_arm_pmu_core(name);
> }
>
> +static bool pmu_alias_is_duplicate(struct sevent *alias_a,
> + struct sevent *alias_b)
> +{
> + /* Different names -> never duplicates */
> + if (strcmp(alias_a->name, alias_b->name))
> + return false;
> + if (!alias_a->pmu)
> + return true;
> + if (!alias_b->pmu)
> + return true;
nit could be:
if (!alias_a->pmu || !alias_b->pmu)
return true;
would be great to have more comments explaining the check
thanks,
jirka
> + if (!strcmp(alias_a->pmu, alias_b->pmu))
> + return true;
> + /* uncore PMUs */
> + if (!alias_a->is_cpu && !alias_b->is_cpu)
> + return true;
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> void print_pmu_events(const char *event_glob, bool name_only, bool quiet_flag,
> bool long_desc, bool details_flag, bool deprecated,
> const char *pmu_name)
> @@ -1744,12 +1762,8 @@ void print_pmu_events(const char *event_glob, bool name_only, bool quiet_flag,
> qsort(aliases, len, sizeof(struct sevent), cmp_sevent);
> for (j = 0; j < len; j++) {
> /* Skip duplicates */
> - if (j > 0 && !strcmp(aliases[j].name, aliases[j - 1].name)) {
> - if (!aliases[j].pmu || !aliases[j - 1].pmu ||
> - !strcmp(aliases[j].pmu, aliases[j - 1].pmu)) {
> - continue;
> - }
> - }
> + if (j > 0 && pmu_alias_is_duplicate(&aliases[j], &aliases[j - 1]))
> + continue;
>
> if (name_only) {
> printf("%s ", aliases[j].name);
> --
> 2.26.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists