[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIjdDFJHYuK7rdmD@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 18:18:04 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, namhyung@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
eranian@...gle.com, ahmad.yasin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] perf evsel: Fix the annotation for hardware events
on hybrid
Em Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 04:06:59PM -0400, Liang, Kan escreveu:
>
>
> On 2023-06-13 3:35 p.m., Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:27 AM <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> The annotation for hardware events is wrong on hybrid. For example,
> >>
> >> # ./perf stat -a sleep 1
> >>
> >> Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> >>
> >> 32,148.85 msec cpu-clock # 32.000 CPUs utilized
> >> 374 context-switches # 11.633 /sec
> >> 33 cpu-migrations # 1.026 /sec
> >> 295 page-faults # 9.176 /sec
> >> 18,979,960 cpu_core/cycles/ # 590.378 K/sec
> >> 261,230,783 cpu_atom/cycles/ # 8.126 M/sec (54.21%)
> >> 17,019,732 cpu_core/instructions/ # 529.404 K/sec
> >> 38,020,470 cpu_atom/instructions/ # 1.183 M/sec (63.36%)
> >> 3,296,743 cpu_core/branches/ # 102.546 K/sec
> >> 6,692,338 cpu_atom/branches/ # 208.167 K/sec (63.40%)
> >> 96,421 cpu_core/branch-misses/ # 2.999 K/sec
> >> 1,016,336 cpu_atom/branch-misses/ # 31.613 K/sec (63.38%)
> >>
> >> The hardware events have extended type on hybrid, but the evsel__match()
> >> doesn't take it into account.
> >>
> >> Add a mask to filter the extended type on hybrid when checking the config.
> >>
> >> With the patch,
> >>
> >> # ./perf stat -a sleep 1
> >>
> >> Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> >>
> >> 32,139.90 msec cpu-clock # 32.003 CPUs utilized
> >> 343 context-switches # 10.672 /sec
> >> 32 cpu-migrations # 0.996 /sec
> >> 73 page-faults # 2.271 /sec
> >> 13,712,841 cpu_core/cycles/ # 0.000 GHz
> >> 258,301,691 cpu_atom/cycles/ # 0.008 GHz (54.20%)
> >> 12,428,163 cpu_core/instructions/ # 0.91 insn per cycle
> >> 37,786,557 cpu_atom/instructions/ # 2.76 insn per cycle (63.35%)
> >> 2,418,826 cpu_core/branches/ # 75.259 K/sec
> >> 6,965,962 cpu_atom/branches/ # 216.739 K/sec (63.38%)
> >> 72,150 cpu_core/branch-misses/ # 2.98% of all branches
> >> 1,032,746 cpu_atom/branch-misses/ # 42.70% of all branches (63.35%)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> tools/perf/util/evsel.h | 12 ++++++-----
> >> tools/perf/util/stat-shadow.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.h b/tools/perf/util/evsel.h
> >> index b365b449c6ea..36a32e4ca168 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.h
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.h
> >> @@ -350,9 +350,11 @@ u64 format_field__intval(struct tep_format_field *field, struct perf_sample *sam
> >>
> >> struct tep_format_field *evsel__field(struct evsel *evsel, const char *name);
> >>
> >> -#define evsel__match(evsel, t, c) \
> >> +#define EVSEL_EVENT_MASK (~0ULL)
> >> +
> >> +#define evsel__match(evsel, t, c, m) \
> >> (evsel->core.attr.type == PERF_TYPE_##t && \
> >> - evsel->core.attr.config == PERF_COUNT_##c)
> >> + (evsel->core.attr.config & m) == PERF_COUNT_##c)
> >
> > The EVSEL_EVENT_MASK here isn't very intention revealing, perhaps we
> > can remove it and do something like:
> >
> > static inline bool __evsel__match(const struct evsel *evsel, u32 type,
> > u64 config)
> > {
> > if ((type == PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE || type ==PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE) &&
> > perf_pmus__supports_extended_type())
> > return (evsel->core.attr.config & PERF_HW_EVENT_MASK) == config;
> >
> > return evsel->core.attr.config == config;
> > }
> > #define evsel__match(evsel, t, c) __evsel__match(evsel, PERF_TYPE_##t,
> > PERF_COUNT_##c)
>
> Yes, the above code looks better. I will apply it in V2.
Please base v2 on tmp.perf-tools-next, tests are running and that branch
will become perf-tools-next.
Some patches from your series were cherry-picked there.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists