netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] perf evlist: Respect all_cpus when setting user_requested

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c9205f19-52bf-43fe-b1ab-b599d5e2cc7a@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:15:42 +0300
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        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>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
        James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
        German Gomez <german.gomez@....com>,
        Riccardo Mancini <rickyman7@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexey Bayduraev <alexey.v.bayduraev@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexander Antonov <alexander.antonov@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] perf evlist: Respect all_cpus when setting
 user_requested_cpus

On 8/04/22 06:56, Ian Rogers wrote:
> If all_cpus is calculated it represents the merge/union of all
> evsel cpu maps. By default user_requested_cpus is computed to be
> the online CPUs. For uncore events, it is often the case currently
> that all_cpus is a subset of user_requested_cpus. Metrics printed
> without aggregation and with metric-only, in print_no_aggr_metric,
> iterate over user_requested_cpus assuming every CPU has a metric to
> print. For each CPU the prefix is printed, but then if the
> evsel's cpus doesn't contain anything you get an empty line like
> the following on a 2 socket 36 core SkylakeX:
> 
> ```
> $ perf stat -A -M DRAM_BW_Use -a --metric-only -I 1000
>      1.000453137 CPU0                       0.00
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137 CPU18                      0.00
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      1.000453137
>      2.003717143 CPU0                       0.00
> ...
> ```
> 
> While it is possible to be lazier in printing the prefix and
> trailing newline, having user_requested_cpus not be a subset of
> all_cpus is preferential so that wasted work isn't done elsewhere
> user_requested_cpus is used. The change modifies user_requested_cpus
> to be the intersection of user specified CPUs, or default all online
> CPUs, with the CPUs computed through the merge of all evsel cpu maps.
> 
> New behavior:
> ```
> $ perf stat -A -M DRAM_BW_Use -a --metric-only -I 1000
>      1.001086325 CPU0                       0.00
>      1.001086325 CPU18                      0.00
>      2.003671291 CPU0                       0.00
>      2.003671291 CPU18                      0.00
> ...
> ```
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/util/evlist.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
> index 52ea004ba01e..196d57b905a0 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
> @@ -1036,6 +1036,13 @@ int evlist__create_maps(struct evlist *evlist, struct target *target)
>  	if (!cpus)
>  		goto out_delete_threads;
>  
> +	if (evlist->core.all_cpus) {
> +		struct perf_cpu_map *tmp;
> +
> +		tmp = perf_cpu_map__intersect(cpus, evlist->core.all_cpus);

Isn't an uncore PMU represented as being on CPU0 actually
collecting data that can be due to any CPU.

Or for an uncore PMU represented as being on CPU0-CPU4 on a
4 core 8 hyperthread processor, actually 1 PMU per core.

So I am not sure intersection makes sense.

Also it is not obvious what happens with hybrid CPUs or
per thread recording.

> +		perf_cpu_map__put(cpus);
> +		cpus = tmp;
> +	}
>  	evlist->core.has_user_cpus = !!target->cpu_list && !target->hybrid;
>  
>  	perf_evlist__set_maps(&evlist->core, cpus, threads);