[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZbPDYG2Bd2H7C_Es@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 14:36:16 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, acme@...hat.com,
james.clark@....com, john.g.garry@...cle.com, leo.yan@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, mike.leach@...aro.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, suzuki.poulose@....com, tmricht@...ux.ibm.com,
will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf print-events: make is_event_supported() more robust
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 09:05:25AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > However, I'm seeing some slightly odd behaviours:
I believe that this is a separate issue; info dump below.
> > $ sudo ./perf stat -e cycles:k ~/hackbench 100 process 1000
> > Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> > Time: 3.313
> >
> > Performance counter stats for '/home/maz/hackbench 100 process 1000':
> >
> > <not supported> apple_firestorm_pmu/cycles:k/
> > <not supported> apple_icestorm_pmu/cycles:k/
> >
> > 3.467568841 seconds time elapsed
> >
> > 13.080111000 seconds user
> > 53.162099000 seconds sys
> >
> > I would have expected it to count, but it didn't. For that to work, I
> > have to add the 'H' modifier:
I gave that a spin with the aforementioned hacked-up PMUv3 driver, and I see
the same:
| # ./perf-after stat -e cycles true
|
| Performance counter stats for 'true':
|
| <not counted> armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/ (0.00%)
| 1375271 armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/
|
| 0.001153070 seconds time elapsed
|
| 0.001204000 seconds user
| 0.000000000 seconds sys
|
|
| # ./perf-after stat -e cycles:k true
|
| Performance counter stats for 'true':
|
| <not supported> armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles:k/
| <not supported> armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles:k/
|
| 0.000983130 seconds time elapsed
|
| 0.001037000 seconds user
| 0.000000000 seconds sys
|
|
| # ./perf-after stat -e cycles:kH true
|
| Performance counter stats for 'true':
|
| <not counted> armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles:kH/ (0.00%)
| 932067 armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles:kH/
|
| 0.001090100 seconds time elapsed
|
| 0.001125000 seconds user
| 0.000000000 seconds sys
.. though interestingly 'cycles:u' works:
| # ./perf-after stat -e cycles:u true
|
| Performance counter stats for 'true':
|
| 369753 armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles:u/
| <not counted> armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles:u/ (0.00%)
|
| 0.001171980 seconds time elapsed
|
| 0.001245000 seconds user
| 0.000000000 seconds sys
Looking at the output with '-vvv' the perf tool implicitly sets exclude_guest
for 'cycles', 'cycles:u', and 'cycles:kH', but does not set exclude_guest for
'cycles:k'.
It looks like that's consistent with the behaviour of opening separate events
prior to this patch:
| # ./perf-before stat -e armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/ -e armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/ true
|
| Performance counter stats for 'true':
|
| 1407624 armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/
| <not counted> armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/ (0.00%)
|
| 0.001179205 seconds time elapsed
|
| 0.001217000 seconds user
| 0.000000000 seconds sys
|
|
| # ./perf-before stat -e armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/u -e armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/u true
|
| Performance counter stats for 'true':
|
| 329212 armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/u
| <not counted> armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/u (0.00%)
|
| 0.001050550 seconds time elapsed
|
| 0.001081000 seconds user
| 0.000000000 seconds sys
|
|
| # ./perf-before stat -e armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/k -e armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/k true
|
| Performance counter stats for 'true':
|
| <not supported> armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/k
| <not supported> armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/k
|
| 0.000944285 seconds time elapsed
|
| 0.000985000 seconds user
| 0.000000000 seconds sys
|
|
| # ./perf-before stat -e armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/kH -e armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/kH true
|
| Performance counter stats for 'true':
|
| 1016160 armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/kH
| <not counted> armv8_pmuv3_1/cycles/kH (0.00%)
|
| 0.001179220 seconds time elapsed
|
| 0.001239000 seconds user
| 0.000000000 seconds sys
.. and per '-vvv', exclude_guest is set in the same cases.
I agree it's a bit weird that the tool sets exclude_guest for unfilted and ':u'
events, but not ':k' events, but it looks like that's separate from the way
events get expanded.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists