Message-ID: <20200521105412.GS157452@krava>
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 12:54:12 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
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>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        Paul Clarke <pc@...ibm.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] perf metricgroup: Remove duped metric group events

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 03:42:02PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:

SNIP

> >
> > hum, I think that's also concern if you are multiplexing 2 groups and one
> > metric getting events from both groups that were not meassured together
> >
> > it makes sense to me put all the merged events into single weak group
> > anything else will have the issue you described above, no?
> >
> > and perhaps add command line option for merging that to make sure it's
> > what user actuly wants
> 
> I'm not sure I'm following. With the patch set if we have 3 metrics
> with the event groups shown:
> M1: {A,B,C}:W
> M2: {A,B}:W
> M3: {A,B,D}:W
> 
> then what happens is we sort the metrics in to M1, M3, M2 then when we
> come to match the events:
> 
>  - by default: match events allowing sharing if all events come from
> the same group. So in the example M1 will first match with {A,B,C}
> then M3 will fail to match the group {A,B,C} but match {A,B,D}; M2
> will succeed with matching {A,B} from M1. The events/group for M2 can
> be removed as they are no longer used. This kind of sharing is
> opportunistic and respects existing groupings. While it may mean a
> metric is computed from a group that now multiplexes, that group will
> run for more of the time as there are fewer groups to multiplex with.
> In this example we've gone from 3 groups down to 2, 8 events down to
> 6. An improvement would be to realize that A,B is in both M1 and M3,
> so when we print the stat we could combine these values.

ok, I misunderstood and thought you would colaps also M3 to
have A,B computed via M1 group and with separate D ...

thanks a lot for the explanation, it might be great to have it
in the comments/changelog or even man page

> 
>  - with --metric-no-merge: no events are shared by metrics M1, M2 and
> M3 have their events and computation as things currently are. There
> are 3 groups and 8 events.
> 
>  - with --metric-no-group: all groups are removed and so the evlist
> has A,B,C,A,B,A,B,D in it. The matching will now match M1 to A,B,C at
> the beginning of the list, M2 to the first A,B and M3 to the same A,B
> and D at the end of the list. We've got no groups and the events have
> gone from 8 down to 4.
> 
> It is difficult to reason about which grouping is most accurate. If we
> have 4 counters (no NMI watchdog) then this example will fit with no
> multiplexing. The default above should achieve less multiplexing, in
> the same way merging PMU events currently does - this patch is trying
> to mirror the --no-merge functionality to a degree. Considering
> TopDownL1 then we go from metrics that never sum to 100%, to metrics
> that do in either the default or --metric-no-group cases.
> 
> I'm not sure what user option is missing with these combinations? The
> default is trying to strike a compromise and I think user interaction
> is unnecessary, just as --no-merge doesn't cause interaction. If the
> existing behavior is wanted using --metric-no-merge will give that.
> The new default and --metric-no-group are hopefully going to reduce
> the number of groups and events. I'm somewhat agnostic as to what the
> flag functionality should be as what I'm working with needs either the
> default or --metric-no-group, I can use whatever flag is agreed upon.

no other option is needed then

thanks,
jirka

Powered by blists - more mailing lists