| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CO6PR11MB56357CAB40A05370512C0D3DEE2B2@CO6PR11MB5635.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 21:51:02 +0000
From: "Wang, Weilin" <weilin.wang@...el.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa
<jolsa@...nel.org>, "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Kan Liang
<kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Taylor, Perry" <perry.taylor@...el.com>,
"Alt, Samantha" <samantha.alt@...el.com>, "Biggers, Caleb"
<caleb.biggers@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v3 4/6] perf stat: Create another thread for sample
data processing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 11:48 PM
> To: Wang, Weilin <weilin.wang@...el.com>
> Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>; Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>;
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>; Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@...nel.org>; Alexander Shishkin
> <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>; Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>; Hunter,
> Adrian <adrian.hunter@...el.com>; Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>;
> linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Taylor, Perry
> <perry.taylor@...el.com>; Alt, Samantha <samantha.alt@...el.com>; Biggers,
> Caleb <caleb.biggers@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 4/6] perf stat: Create another thread for sample
> data processing
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 4:11 PM <weilin.wang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Weilin Wang <weilin.wang@...el.com>
> >
> > Another thread is required to synchronize between perf stat and perf record
> > when we pass data through pipe.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Weilin Wang <weilin.wang@...el.com>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/builtin-stat.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > index 3e5865572266..2372175d3408 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > @@ -777,7 +777,6 @@ static int process_sample_event(struct perf_tool
> *tool,
> > const char *evname;
> > struct tpebs_retire_lat *t;
> >
> > - pr_debug("entering function %s\n ", __func__);
> > evname = evsel__name(evsel);
> >
> > pr_debug("[%03d] ", sample->cpu);
> > @@ -808,9 +807,9 @@ static int process_feature_event(struct perf_session
> *session,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static int __cmd_script(struct child_process *cmd __maybe_unused)
> > +static void *__cmd_script(void *arg __maybe_unused)
> > {
> > - int err = 0;
> > + struct child_process *cmd = arg;
> > struct perf_session *session;
> > struct perf_data data = {
> > .mode = PERF_DATA_MODE_READ,
> > @@ -826,29 +825,15 @@ static int __cmd_script(struct child_process *cmd
> __maybe_unused)
> > .attr = perf_event__process_attr,
> > },
> > };
> > - struct tpebs_event *e;
> > -
> > - list_for_each_entry(e, &stat_config.tpebs_events, nd) {
> > - struct tpebs_retire_lat *new = malloc(sizeof(struct
> tpebs_retire_lat));
> > -
> > - if (!new)
> > - return -1;
> > - new->name = strdup(e->name);
> > - new->tpebs_name = strdup(e->tpebs_name);
> > - new->count = 0;
> > - new->sum = 0;
> > - list_add_tail(&new->nd, &stat_config.tpebs_results);
> > - }
> >
> > - kill(cmd->pid, SIGTERM);
> > session = perf_session__new(&data, &script.tool);
> > if (IS_ERR(session))
> > - return PTR_ERR(session);
> > + return NULL;
> > script.session = session;
> > - err = perf_session__process_events(session);
> > + perf_session__process_events(session);
> > perf_session__delete(session);
> >
> > - return err;
> > + return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > static int __run_perf_stat(int argc, const char **argv, int run_idx)
> > @@ -868,15 +853,37 @@ static int __run_perf_stat(int argc, const char
> **argv, int run_idx)
> > int err;
> > bool second_pass = false;
> > struct child_process cmd;
> > + pthread_t thread_script;
> >
> > //Prepare perf record for sampling event retire_latency before fork and
> prepare workload
> > if (stat_config.tpebs_event_size > 0) {
> > int ret;
> >
> > + struct tpebs_event *e;
> > pr_debug("perf stat pid = %d\n", getpid());
> > ret = prepare_perf_record(&cmd);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(e, &stat_config.tpebs_events, nd) {
> > + struct tpebs_retire_lat *new = malloc(sizeof(struct
> tpebs_retire_lat));
> > +
> > + if (!new)
> > + return -1;
>
> This would leave the record command. I think you'd better
> do this before prepare_perf_record().
>
>
> > + new->name = strdup(e->name);
> > + new->tpebs_name = strdup(e->tpebs_name);
> > + new->count = 0;
> > + new->sum = 0;
> > + list_add_tail(&new->nd, &stat_config.tpebs_results);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (pthread_create(&thread_script, NULL, __cmd_script, &cmd)) {
> > + kill(cmd.pid, SIGTERM);
> > + close(cmd.out);
> > + pr_err("Could not create thread to process sample data.\n");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + sleep(2);
>
> Why?
In my experiments, I found that perf record initialization time is usually longer than
the time needed in perf stat, especially when we start a lot of initialization of perf
stat before perf record already. Without a waiting time here, perf record may not
have enough time to launch and collect data if the execution time of the parent
process (perf stat) is very short (a few seconds). Therefore, I added a sleep here to
wait for perf record as a quick but ad hoc solution here. The two second time is
selected based on my experiment data. I mentioned this as a remaining issue in
the cover letter of patch v1.
I will add a comment here. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on how
To solve this issue. Thanks a lot!
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>
>
> > }
> >
> > if (forks) {
> > @@ -1087,12 +1094,15 @@ static int __run_perf_stat(int argc, const char
> **argv, int run_idx)
> > if (stat_config.tpebs_event_size > 0) {
> > int ret;
> >
> > - pr_debug("pid = %d\n", getpid());
> > - pr_debug("cmd.pid = %d\n", cmd.pid);
> > + pr_debug("Workload finished, finishing record\n");
> > + pr_debug("Perf stat pid = %d, Perf record pid = %d\n", getpid(),
> cmd.pid);
> >
> > - ret = __cmd_script(&cmd);
> > + kill(cmd.pid, SIGTERM);
> > + pthread_join(thread_script, NULL);
> > close(cmd.out);
> > - pr_debug("%d\n", ret);
> > + ret = finish_command(&cmd);
> > + if (ret != -ERR_RUN_COMMAND_WAITPID_SIGNAL)
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > if (stat_config.walltime_run_table)
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists