Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 00/19] perf metric: Add support to reuse metric | From | John Garry <> | Date | Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:15:16 +0000 |
| |
On 23/03/2021 15:06, Paul A. Clarke wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:36:23AM +0000, John Garry wrote: >> On 01/08/2020 12:40, Paul A. Clarke wrote: >>>> v4 changes: >>>> - removed acks from patch because it changed a bit >>>> with the last fixes: >>>> perf metric: Collect referenced metrics in struct metric_ref_node >>>> - fixed runtime metrics [Kajol Jain] >>>> - increased recursion depth [Paul A. Clarke] >>>> - changed patches due to dependencies: >>>> perf metric: Collect referenced metrics in struct metric_ref_node >>>> perf metric: Add recursion check when processing nested metrics >>>> perf metric: Rename struct egroup to metric >>>> perf metric: Rename group_list to metric_list >>>> >>>> Also available in here: >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git >>>> perf/metric >>> I built and ran from the above git branch, and things seem to work. >>> Indeed, I was able to apply my changes to exploit the new capabilities >>> via modifications to tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/powerpc/power9/metrics.json, >>> as I posted earlier (and will submit once this set gets merged). >> I was just wondering: Does perf subtest 10.3 work ok for you with the metric >> reuse? >> >> That's "Parsing of PMU event table metrics" subtest. > I confess I'm not sure what you are asking. Using the latest mainline > (84196390620ac0e5070ae36af84c137c6216a7dc), perf subtest 10.3 does > pass for me: > -- > $ ./perf test 10 > 10: PMU events : > 10.1: PMU event table sanity : Ok > 10.2: PMU event map aliases : Ok > 10.3: Parsing of PMU event table metrics : Ok > 10.4: Parsing of PMU event table metrics with fake PMUs : Ok > -- Since commit 8989f5f07605 ("perf stat: Update POWER9 metrics to utilize other metrics"), power9 has reused metrics.
And I am finding that subtest 10.3 caused problems when I tried to introduce metric reuse on arm64, so I was just asking you to check.
Now I am a bit confused...
Thanks for checking, john
| |