lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf evsel: Fix missing exclude_{host,guest} setting
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:07 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 06:03:21PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >
> >
> > On October 17, 2021 4:05:46 PM GMT-03:00, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:12:53PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > >> The current logic for the perf missing feature has a bug that it can
> > >> wrongly clear some modifiers like G or H. Actually some PMUs don't
> > >> support any filtering or exclusion while others do. But we check it
> > >> as a global feature.
> > >>
> > >> For example, the cycles event can have 'G' modifier to enable it only
> > >> in the guest mode on x86. When you don't run any VMs it'll return 0.
> > >>
> > >> # perf stat -a -e cycles:G sleep 1
> > >>
> > >> Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> > >>
> > >> 0 cycles:G
> > >>
> > >> 1.000721670 seconds time elapsed
> > >>
> > >> But when it's used with other pmu events that don't support G modifier,
> > >> it'll be reset and return non-zero values.
> > >>
> > >> # perf stat -a -e cycles:G,msr/tsc/ sleep 1
> > >>
> > >> Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> > >>
> > >> 538,029,960 cycles:G
> > >> 16,924,010,738 msr/tsc/
> > >>
> > >> 1.001815327 seconds time elapsed
> > >>
> > >> This is because of the missing feature detection logic being global.
> > >> Add a hashmap to set pmu-specific exclude_host/guest features.
> > >>
> > >> Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> > >> ---
> > >> tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > >> tools/perf/util/evsel.h | 6 ++++++
> > >> 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > >> index dbfeceb2546c..437a28e769fe 100644
> > >> --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > >> @@ -1434,6 +1434,10 @@ void evsel__delete(struct evsel *evsel)
> > >> {
> > >> evsel__exit(evsel);
> > >> free(evsel);
> > >> +
> > >> + /* just free it for the first evsel */
> > >> + hashmap__free(perf_missing_features.pmu);
> > >> + perf_missing_features.pmu = NULL;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> void evsel__compute_deltas(struct evsel *evsel, int cpu, int thread,
> > >> @@ -1791,6 +1795,23 @@ static int __evsel__prepare_open(struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_cpu_map *cpus,
> > >> return 0;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> +#define PMU_HASH_BITS 4
> > >> +
> > >> +static size_t pmu_hash(const void *key, void *ctx __maybe_unused)
> > >> +{
> > >> + const struct evsel *evsel = key;
> > >> +
> > >> + return hash_bits(evsel->core.attr.type, PMU_HASH_BITS);
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> +static bool pmu_equal(const void *key1, const void *key2, void *ctx __maybe_unused)
> > >> +{
> > >> + const struct evsel *a = key1;
> > >> + const struct evsel *b = key2;
> > >> +
> > >> + return a->core.attr.type == b->core.attr.type;
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> static void evsel__disable_missing_features(struct evsel *evsel)
> > >> {
> > >> if (perf_missing_features.weight_struct) {
> > >> @@ -1807,8 +1828,14 @@ static void evsel__disable_missing_features(struct evsel *evsel)
> > >> evsel->open_flags &= ~(unsigned long)PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC;
> > >> if (perf_missing_features.mmap2)
> > >> evsel->core.attr.mmap2 = 0;
> > >> - if (perf_missing_features.exclude_guest)
> > >> - evsel->core.attr.exclude_guest = evsel->core.attr.exclude_host = 0;
> > >> + if (perf_missing_features.exclude_guest) {
> > >> + void *pmu;
> > >
> > >could you just pass NULL in here instead of NULL?
> >
> > ENOPARSE
>
> ugh right... 'instead of &pmu' ;-)

Yes, we can pass NULL for the current code.
Passing the pointer is just for future change.
Maybe I thought too much.. :)

Anyway, I think it should pass the struct itself,
not the pointer to the local variable.
I'm not sure if it's possible to cast a struct literal
to a pointer, will check and update in v2.

Thanks,
Namhyung

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-18 06:54    [W:0.062 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site