Message-ID: <CAP-5=fXpacz331M71WR1HZHS0p7t9zqNUqBvMf2EjOxaB9Ayyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:52:25 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, James Clark <james.clark@....com>, 
	Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>, Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, 
	ananth.narayan@....com, gautham.shenoy@....com, kprateek.nayak@....com, 
	sandipan.das@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] perf pmu: Add support for event.cpus files in sysfs

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 12:10 AM Dhananjay Ugwekar
<Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/26/2024 12:36 PM, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> > Hello, Ian, Kan,
> >
> > On 7/20/2024 3:32 AM, Ian Rogers wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 9:35 AM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2024-07-19 10:59 a.m., Ian Rogers wrote:
> >>>> Thanks Kan. I'm not wondering about a case of 2 CPUs, say on CPU0 and
> >>>> solely its perf event context, I want to know its core power and
> >>>> package power as a group so I never record one without the other. That
> >>>> grouping wouldn't be possible with 2 PMUs.
> >>>
> >>> For power, to be honest, I don't think it improves anything. It gives
> >>> users a false image that perf can group these counters.
> >>> But the truth is that perf cannot. The power counters are all
> >>> free-running counters. It's impossible to co-schedule them (which
> >>> requires a global mechanism to disable/enable all counters, e.g.,
> >>> GLOBAL_CTRL for core PMU). The kernel still has to read the counters one
> >>> by one while the counters keep running. There are no differences with or
> >>> without a group for the power events.
> >>
> >> Ok, so power should copy cstate with _core, _pkg, etc. I agree the
> >> difference is small and I like the idea of being consistent.
> >
> > So, it seems we want to follow the new PMU addition approach for RAPL
> > being consistent with Intel cstate driver, should I revive my "power_per_core"
> > PMU thread now?
>
> The power_per_core PMU thread link for reference,
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711102436.4432-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com/

I think so. Would it be possible to follow the same naming convention
as cstate, where there is cstate_pkg and cstate_core? (ie no "_per" in
the name)

Thanks,
Ian

> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dhananjay
> >
> >  Do we
> >> want to add "event.cpus" support to the tool anyway for potential
> >> future uses? This would at least avoid problems with newer kernels and
> >> older perf tools were we to find a good use for it.
> >>
> >>>> My understanding had been that for core PMUs a "perf stat -C" option
> >>>> would choose the particular CPU to count the event on, for an uncore
> >>>> PMU the -C option would override the cpumask's "default" value. We
> >>>> have code to validate this:
> >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/util/evlist.c?h=perf-tools-next#n2522
> >>>> But it seems now that overriding an uncore PMU's default CPU is
> >>>> ignored.
> >>>
> >>> For the uncore driver, no matter what -C set, it writes the default CPU
> >>> back.
> >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c#n760
> >>>
> >>>> If you did:
> >>>> $ perf stat -C 1 -e data_read -a sleep 0.1
> >>>> Then the tool thinks data_read is on CPU1 and will set its thread
> >>>> affinity to CPU1 to avoid IPIs. It seems to fix this we need to just
> >>>> throw away the -C option.
> >>> The perf tool can still read the the counter from CPU1 and no IPIs
> >>> because of the PMU_EV_CAP_READ_ACTIVE_PKG().
> >>>
> >>> Not quite sure, but it seems only the open and close may be impacted and
> >>> silently changed to CPU0.
> >>
> >> There's also enable/disable. Andi did the work and there were some
> >> notable gains but likely more on core events. Ultimately it'd be nice
> >> to be opening, closing.. everything in parallel given the calls are
> >> slow and the work is embarrassingly parallel.
> >> It feels like the cpumasks for uncore could still do with some cleanup
> >> wrt -C I'm just unsure at the moment what this should be. Tbh, I'm
> >> tempted to rewrite evlist propagate maps as someone may look at it and
> >> think I believe in what it is doing. The parallel stuff we should grab
> >> Riccardo's past work.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Kan
> >>>>
> >>>>>> 2) do the /sys/devices/<pmu>/events/event.(unit|scale|per-pkg|snapshot)
> >>>>>> files parse correctly and have a corresponding event.
> >>>>>> 3) keep adding opening events on the PMU to a group to make sure that
> >>>>>> when counters are exhausted the perf_event_open fails (I've seen this
> >>>>>> bug on AMD)
> >>>>>> 4) are the values in the type file unique
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rest sounds good to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cool. Let me know if you can think of more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Ian
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Kan
> >>>>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists