linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH v6 2/5] perf stat: Fork and launch perf record when perf stat needs to get retire latency value for a metric.

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
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:08:41 +0000
From: "Wang, Weilin" <weilin.wang@...el.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
	<acme@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar
	<mingo@...hat.com>, 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 v6 2/5] perf stat: Fork and launch perf record when
 perf stat needs to get retire latency value for a metric.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 11:50 AM
> To: Wang, Weilin <weilin.wang@...el.com>
> Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>; Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@...nel.org>; Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>; Ingo Molnar
> <mingo@...hat.com>; 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 v6 2/5] perf stat: Fork and launch perf record when
> perf stat needs to get retire latency value for a metric.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 10:08 AM Wang, Weilin <weilin.wang@...el.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 4:06 PM
> > > To: Wang, Weilin <weilin.wang@...el.com>
> > > Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>; Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > > <acme@...nel.org>; Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>; Ingo Molnar
> > > <mingo@...hat.com>; 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 v6 2/5] perf stat: Fork and launch perf record
> when
> > > perf stat needs to get retire latency value for a metric.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 3:16 PM Wang, Weilin <weilin.wang@...el.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > -static int __run_perf_record(void)
> > > > > > > > +static int __run_perf_record(const char **record_argv)
> > > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > > +       int i = 0;
> > > > > > > > +       struct tpebs_event *e;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >         pr_debug("Prepare perf record for retire_latency\n");
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +       record_argv[i++] = "perf";
> > > > > > > > +       record_argv[i++] = "record";
> > > > > > > > +       record_argv[i++] = "-W";
> > > > > > > > +       record_argv[i++] = "--synth=no";
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +       if (stat_config.user_requested_cpu_list) {
> > > > > > > > +               record_argv[i++] = "-C";
> > > > > > > > +               record_argv[i++] = stat_config.user_requested_cpu_list;
> > > > > > > > +       }
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +       if (stat_config.system_wide)
> > > > > > > > +               record_argv[i++] = "-a";
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +       if (!stat_config.system_wide
> > > > > && !stat_config.user_requested_cpu_list)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > +               pr_err("Require -a or -C option to run sampling.\n");
> > > > > > > > +               return -ECANCELED;
> > > > > > > > +       }
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +       list_for_each_entry(e, &stat_config.tpebs_events, nd) {
> > > > > > > > +               record_argv[i++] = "-e";
> > > > > > > > +               record_argv[i++] = e->name;
> > > > > > > > +       }
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +       record_argv[i++] = "-o";
> > > > > > > > +       record_argv[i++] = PERF_DATA;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >         return 0;
> > > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Still I think it's weird it has 'perf record' in perf stat (despite the
> > > > > > > 'perf stat record').  If it's only Intel thing and we don't have a plan
> > > > > > > to do the same on other arches, we can move it to the arch
> > > > > > > directory and keep the perf stat code simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure what is the proper way to solve this. And Ian mentioned
> > > > > > that put code in arch directory could potentially cause other bugs.
> > > > > > So I'm wondering if we could keep this code here for now. I could
> work
> > > > > > on it later if we found it's better to be in arch directory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe somewhere in the util/ and keep the main code minimal.
> > > > > IIUC it's only for very recent (or upcoming?) Intel CPUs and we
> > > > > don't have tests (hopefully can run on other arch/CPUs).
> > > > >
> > > > > So I don't think having it here would help fixing potential bugs.
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean by creating a new file in util/ to hold this code?
> > >
> > > Yeah, maybe util/intel-tpebs.c (if it's better than arch/x86/...) ?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this feature is for very recent Intel CPUs. It should only be triggered if
> > > > a metric uses event(s) that has the R modifier in the formula.
> > >
> > > Can we have a test with a fake metric so that we can test
> > > the code on non-(or old-)Intel machines?
> >
> > All the existing metrics in non-(or old-)Intel CPUs should work as usual. So I
> think
> > existing metric tests should work for it.
> >
> > If we want to add a fake metric uses the :R modifier for those platforms, the
> metric
> > should either fail (if the fake metric uses an event not exist on the test
> platform) or
> > return all 0 retire latency data.
> >
> > So, I'm not quite sure what we want the fake metric to test for. Maybe we
> could
> > continue using existing metric tests to ensure all the defined metrics work
> correctly
> > in each machine under test?
> 
> I think it's ok to return all 0 retire latency for fake tPEBS metrics.
> It's just to verify the background record + report logic works ok.

Ok, I will work on this. We need a fake metric that uses events exist on all the 
platforms. 

Thanks,
Weilin

> 
> Thanks,
> Namhyung