Message-ID: <d60c3bed-2280-4305-948a-cbb63674060b@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 07:36:27 +0200
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] perf/x86/intel/pt: Add support for pause_resume()

On 30/11/23 12:07, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/11/2023 12:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 29/11/23 12:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 09:53:39AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
>>>>> On 23/11/2023 12:18, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> +static void pt_event_pause_resume(struct perf_event *event)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	if (event->aux_paused)
>>>>>> +		pt_config_stop(event);
>>>>>> +	else if (!event->hw.state)
>>>>>> +		pt_config_start(event);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems like having a single pause/resume callback rather than separate
>>>>> pause and resume ones pushes some of the event state management into the
>>>>> individual drivers and would be prone to code duplication and divergent
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be possible to move the conditions from here into the core code
>>>>> and call separate functions instead?
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>  static void pt_event_start(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>  	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
>>>>>> @@ -1798,6 +1809,7 @@ static __init int pt_init(void)
>>>>>>  	pt_pmu.pmu.del			 = pt_event_del;
>>>>>>  	pt_pmu.pmu.start		 = pt_event_start;
>>>>>>  	pt_pmu.pmu.stop			 = pt_event_stop;
>>>>>> +	pt_pmu.pmu.pause_resume		 = pt_event_pause_resume;
>>>>>
>>>>> The general idea seems ok to me. Is there a reason to not use the
>>>>> existing start() stop() callbacks, rather than adding a new one?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume it's intended to be something like an optimisation where you
>>>>> can turn it on and off without having to do the full setup, teardown and
>>>>> emit an AUX record because you know the process being traced never gets
>>>>> switched out?
>>>>
>>>> So the actual scheduling uses ->add() / ->del(), the ->start() /
>>>> ->stop() methods are something that can be used after ->add() and before
>>>> ->del() to 'temporarily' pause things.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much exactly what is required here I think. We currently use this
>>>> for PMI throttling and adaptive frequency stuff, but there is no reason
>>>> it could not also be used for this.
>>>>
>>>> As is, we don't track the paused state across ->del() / ->add(), but
>>>> perhaps that can be fixed. We can easily add more PERF_EF_ / PERF_HES_
>>>> bits to manage things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure stop / start play nice with NMI's from other events e.g.
>>>
>>> PMC NMI wants to pause or resume AUX but what if AUX event is currently
>>> being processed in ->stop() or ->start()?  Or maybe that can't happen?
>>
>> I think that can happen, and pt_event_stop() can actually handle some of
>> that, while your pause_resume() thing, which uses pt_config_stop() does
>> not.
>>
>> But yes, I think that if you add pt_event_{stop,start}() calls from
>> *other* events their PMI, then you get to deal with more 'fun'.
>>
>> Something like:
>>
>>   perf_addr_filters_adjust()
>>     __perf_addr_filters_adjust()
>>       perf_event_stop()
>>         __perf_event_stop()
>> 	  event->pmu->stop()
>> 	  <NMI>
>> 	    ...
>> 	    perf_event_overflow()
>> 	      pt_event->pmu->stop()
>> 	  </NMI>
>> 	  event->pmu->start() // whoopsie!
>>
>> Should now be possible.
>>
>> I think what you want to do is rename pt->handle_nmi into pt->stop_count
>> and make it a counter, then ->stop() increments it, and ->start()
>> decrements it and everybody ensures the thing doesn't get restart while
>> !0 etc..
>>
>> I suspect you need to guard the generic part of this feature with a new
>> PERF_PMU_CAP_ flag and then have the coresight/etc. people opt-in once
>> they've audited things.
>>
>> James, does that work for you?
>>
> 
> Yep I think that would work.
> 
> If I understand it with the stop_count counter, to be able to support
> the new CAP, every device would basically have to implement a similar
> counter?
> 
> Would it be possible to do that reference counting on the outside of
> start() and stop() in the core code? So that a device only ever sees one
> call to start and one call to stop and doesn't need to do any extra
> tracking?

stop_counter does not seem right for pauses and resumes because they
should not accumulate.  We want:

	pause	stop
	pause
	resume	start
	resume

not:

	pause	stop
	pause
	resume
	resume	start

Also stop_counter has issues like:

	stop_counter 0 -> 1
	<NMI>
		stop_counter 1 -> 0
		start()
	</NMI>
	stop()	<- stop_counter is now out of sync

or:

	stop_counter 1 -> 0
	<NMI>
		stop_counter 0 -> 1
		stop()
	</NMI>
	start()	<- stop_counter is now out of sync

Also Intel PT implementation uses low-level start / stop
for pause / resume, which can be made not to conflict with
regular start / stop because they only toggle TRACEEN bit.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists