Messages in this thread | | | From | Joakim Zhang <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] perf metricgroup: Fix system PMU metrics | Date | Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:19:51 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> > Sent: 2021年1月20日 17:16 > To: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@nxp.com>; peterz@infradead.org; > mingo@redhat.com; acme@kernel.org; mark.rutland@arm.com; > alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com; jolsa@redhat.com; > namhyung@kernel.org; irogers@google.com; kjain@linux.ibm.com > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf metricgroup: Fix system PMU metrics > > On 20/01/2021 05:15, Joakim Zhang wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> > >> Sent: 2021年1月20日 1:33 > >> To: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@nxp.com>; peterz@infradead.org; > >> mingo@redhat.com; acme@kernel.org; mark.rutland@arm.com; > >> alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com; jolsa@redhat.com; > >> namhyung@kernel.org; irogers@google.com; kjain@linux.ibm.com > >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf metricgroup: Fix system PMU metrics > >> > >> On 19/01/2021 15:47, John Garry wrote: > >>> On 19/01/2021 10:56, Joakim Zhang wrote: > >>>> It seems have other issue compared to 5.10 kernel after switching > >>>> to this framework, below metric can't work. > >>>> "MetricExpr": "(( imx8_ddr0@read\\-cycles@ + > >>>> imx8_ddr0@write\\-cycles@ > >>>> ) * 4 * 4 / duration_time) / (750 * 1000000 * 4 * 4)" > >>>> After change to: > >>>> "MetricExpr": "(( imx8mm_ddr.read_cycles + imx8mm_ddr.write_cycles > >>>> ) > >>>> * > >>>> 4 * 4 / duration_time) / (750 * 1000000 * 4 * 4)", > >>> > >>> It seems that any metric which includes "duration_time" is broken, > >>> even on x86: > >>> > >>> john@localhost:~/acme/tools/perf> sudo ./perf stat -v -M > >>> L1D_Cache_Fill_BW sleep 1 Using CPUID GenuineIntel-6-3D-4 metric > >>> expr > >>> 64 * l1d.replacement / 1000000000 / duration_time for > >>> L1D_Cache_Fill_BW found event duration_time found event > >>> l1d.replacement adding {l1d.replacement}:W,duration_time > >>> l1d.replacement -> cpu/umask=0x1,(null)=0x1e8483,event=0x51/ > >>> Segmentation fault > >>> > >>> > >>> Seems to be from my commit c2337d67199 ("perf metricgroup: Fix > >>> metrics using aliases covering multiple PMUs") > >>> > >>> I'll look to fix it now. > >>> > >> > >> Please try this: > >> > >> From 2380f1ef0250e6818b3dbc7bff4a868810875e2a Mon Sep 17 > 00:00:00 > >> 2001 > >> From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> > >> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:29:54 +0000 > >> Subject: [PATCH] perf metricgroup: Fix metric support for > >> duration_time > >> > >> For a metric using duration_time, the strcmp() check when finding > >> identical events in metric_events[] is broken, as it does not > >> consider that the event pmu_name is NULL - it would be for duration_time. > >> > >> As such, add a NULL check here for event pmu_name. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > >> b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c index ee94d3e8dd65..277adff8017f > >> 100644 > >> --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > >> @@ -280,6 +280,8 @@ static struct evsel *find_evsel_group(struct > >> evlist *perf_evlist, > >> */ > >> if (!has_constraint && > >> ev->leader != metric_events[i]->leader && > >> + ev->leader->pmu_name && > >> + metric_events[i]->leader->pmu_name && > >> !strcmp(ev->leader->pmu_name, > >> metric_events[i]->leader->pmu_name)) > >> break; > >> -- > >> 2.26.2 > >> > >> > > > > For this patch: Tested-by: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@nxp.com> > > > > Hi John, Jolsa, > > > > Is there any way to avoid breaking exist metric expressions? If not, it will > always happened after metricgroup changes. > > > > They are not normally broken like that. Normally we test beforehand, but these > cases were missed here by me. However if you were testing them previously, > then it would be expected that you had tested them again for the final patchset > which was merged.
Yes, John, sorry. I have not did the fully test before, this could be avoided.
Best Regards, Joakim Zhang > Anyway, we can look to add metric tests for these. > > @Arnaldo, I will send separate formal patch for this today. > > Thanks, > John
| |