Message-ID: <CAP-5=fUVNa_JKz7WweWsQjobhFCoknbPuPGzPGFGcaDJ8wxLQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 16:36:25 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>, 
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Yongwei Ma <yongwei.ma@...el.com>, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 0/6] Bug fixes on topdown events reordering

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 4:29 PM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024-10-03 6:13 p.m., Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> Dapeng's comment should cover replace the comment /* Followed by
> >> topdown events. */ but there are other things amiss. I'm thinking of
> >> something like: "slots,cycles,{instructions,topdown-be-bound}" the
> >> topdown-be-bound should get sorted and grouped with slots, but cycles
> >> and instructions have no reason to be reordered, so do we end up with
> >> slots, instructions and topdown-be-bound being grouped with cycles
> >> sitting ungrouped in the middle of the evlist? I believe there are
> >> assumptions that grouped evsels are adjacent in the evlist, not least
> >> in:
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c?h=perf-tools-next#n2106
> >> Does cycles instructions end up being broken out of a group in this
> >> case? Which feels like the case the code was trying to avoid.
> > I got this:
> >
> >   $ sudo ./perf record -a -e "slots,cycles,{instructions,topdown-be-bound}" true
> >   Error:
> >   The sys_perf_event_open() syscall returned with 22 (Invalid argument) for event (topdown-be-bound).
> >   "dmesg | grep -i perf" may provide additional information.
>
> To be honest, I think the "slots,cycles,{instructions,topdown-be-bound}"
> is a meaningless case. Why a user wants to group instructions and
> topdown events, but leave the slots out of the group?
> There could be hundreds of different combinations caused by the perf
> metrics mess. I don't think the re-ordering code should/can fix all of them.

I'm happy with better code and things don't need to be perfect. Can we
fix the comments though? It'd be nice to also include that some things
are going to be broken. I can imagine groups with topdown events but
without slots, for example we group events in metrics and in
tma_retiring we add "0 * tma_info_thread_slots" to the metric so that
we get a slots event. If the multiply were optimized away as redundant
then we'd have a topdown group without slots, we could pick up slots
and other events from other metrics.

> For the case which the re-ordering cannot cover (like above), an error
> out is acceptable. So the end user can update their command to a more
> meaningful format, either {slots,cycles,instructions,topdown-be-bound}
> or {slots,topdown-be-bound},cycles,instructions still works.

Perhaps we can add an arch error path that could help more for topdown
events given they are a particular pain to open.

> I think what the patch set really fixed is the failure of sample read
> with perf metrics. Without the patch set, it never works no matter how
> you change the order of the events.
> A better ordering is just a nice to have feature. If perf cannot
> provides a perfect re-ordering, I think an error out is also OK.

Agreed, we don't need to fix everything and focussing on the common
use cases makes sense.

Thanks,
Ian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists