lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf parse-events: Use strcmp to compare the PMU name
From
Date
Hi Jiri,

On 4/30/2020 4:45 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 08:36:18AM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
>> A big uncore event group is split into multiple small groups which
>> only include the uncore events from the same PMU. This has been
>> supported in the commit 3cdc5c2cb924a ("perf parse-events: Handle
>> uncore event aliases in small groups properly").
>>
>> If the event's PMU name starts to repeat, it must be a new event.
>> That can be used to distinguish the leader from other members.
>> But now it only compares the pointer of pmu_name
>> (leader->pmu_name == evsel->pmu_name).
>>
>> If we use "perf stat -M LLC_MISSES.PCIE_WRITE -a" on cascadelakex,
>> the event list is:
>>
>> evsel->name evsel->pmu_name
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> unc_iio_data_req_of_cpu.mem_write.part0 uncore_iio_4 (as leader)
>> unc_iio_data_req_of_cpu.mem_write.part0 uncore_iio_2
>> unc_iio_data_req_of_cpu.mem_write.part0 uncore_iio_0
>> unc_iio_data_req_of_cpu.mem_write.part0 uncore_iio_5
>> unc_iio_data_req_of_cpu.mem_write.part0 uncore_iio_3
>> unc_iio_data_req_of_cpu.mem_write.part0 uncore_iio_1
>> unc_iio_data_req_of_cpu.mem_write.part1 uncore_iio_4
>> ......
>>
>> For the event "unc_iio_data_req_of_cpu.mem_write.part1" with
>> "uncore_iio_4", it should be the event from PMU "uncore_iio_4".
>> It's not a new leader for this PMU.
>>
>> But if we use "(leader->pmu_name == evsel->pmu_name)", the check
>> would be failed and the event is stored to leaders[] as a new
>> PMU leader.
>>
>> So this patch uses strcmp to compare the PMU name between events.
>>
>> Fixes: 3cdc5c2cb924a ("perf parse-events: Handle uncore event aliases in small groups properly")
>> Signed-off-by: Jin Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
>
> looks good, any chance we could have automated test
> for this uncore leader setup logic? like maybe the way
> John did the pmu-events tests? like test will trigger
> only when there's the pmu/events in the system
>
> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>
> thanks,
> jirka
>
>

I'm considering to use LKP to do the sanity tests for all perf events
(core/uncore) and perf metrics periodically. It may help us to find the
regressions on time.

Thanks
Jin Yao

>> ---
>> tools/perf/util/parse-events.c | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
>> index 10107747b361..786eddb6a097 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
>> @@ -1629,12 +1629,11 @@ parse_events__set_leader_for_uncore_aliase(char *name, struct list_head *list,
>> * event. That can be used to distinguish the leader from
>> * other members, even they have the same event name.
>> */
>> - if ((leader != evsel) && (leader->pmu_name == evsel->pmu_name)) {
>> + if ((leader != evsel) &&
>> + !strcmp(leader->pmu_name, evsel->pmu_name)) {
>> is_leader = false;
>> continue;
>> }
>> - /* The name is always alias name */
>> - WARN_ON(strcmp(leader->name, evsel->name));
>>
>> /* Store the leader event for each PMU */
>> leaders[nr_pmu++] = (uintptr_t) evsel;
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-30 15:46    [W:2.016 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site