[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aDdR0pCNSmxCEyEZ@google.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 11:11:30 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...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>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>,
Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@...el.com>,
Graham Woodward <graham.woodward@....com>,
Howard Chu <howardchu95@...il.com>,
Weilin Wang <weilin.wang@...el.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Falcon <thomas.falcon@...el.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...dmodwrite.com>,
Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@...gle.com>, Ben Gainey <ben.gainey@....com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] perf sample: Remove arch notion of sample parsing
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 02:15:24PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 1:27 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 09:53:15AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > By definition arch sample parsing and synthesis will inhibit certain
> > > kinds of cross-platform record then analysis (report, script,
> > > etc.). Remove arch_perf_parse_sample_weight and
> > > arch_perf_synthesize_sample_weight replacing with a common
> > > implementation. Combine perf_sample p_stage_cyc and retire_lat to
> > > capture the differing uses regardless of compiled for architecture.
> >
> > Can you please do this without renaming? It can be a separate patch but
> > I think we can just leave it.
>
> It is not clear what the use of the union is. Presumably it is a
> tagged union but there is no tag as the union value to use is implied
> by either being built on x86_64 or powerpc. The change removes the
> notion of this code being built for x86_64 or powerpc and so the union
> value to use isn't clear (e.g. should arm use p_stage_cyc or
> retire_lat from the union), hence combining to show that it could be
> one or the other. The code could be:
> ```
> #ifdef __x86_64__
> u16 p_stage_cyc;
> #elif defined(powerpc)
> u16 retire_lat;
> #endif
> ```
> but this isn't cross-platform.
Right, we probably don't want it.
> The change in hist.h of
> ```
> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ struct hist_entry {
> u64 code_page_size;
> u64 weight;
> u64 ins_lat;
> - u64 p_stage_cyc;
> + u64 p_stage_cyc_or_retire_lat;
> ```
> could be a follow up CL, but then we lose something of what the field
> is holding given the value is just a copy of that same named value in
> perf_sample. The code only inserts 34 lines and so the churn of doing
> that seemed worse than having the change in a single patch for
> clarity.
Assuming other archs can add something later, we won't rename the field
again. So I can live with the ugly union fields. If we really want to
rename it, I prefer calling it just 'weight3' and let the archs handle
the display name only.
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists