Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:23:48 +0800 | From | Leo Yan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] perf arm-spe: Assign kernel time to synthesized event |
| |
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:46:31PM +0300, James Clark wrote: > > > On 12/04/2021 12:10, Leo Yan wrote: > > In current code, it assigns the arch timer counter to the synthesized > > samples Arm SPE trace, thus the samples don't contain the kernel time > > but only contain the raw counter value. > > > > To fix the issue, this patch converts the timer counter to kernel time > > and assigns it to sample timestamp. > > > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> > > --- > > tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c > > index 23714cf0380e..c13a89f06ab8 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c > > @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ static void arm_spe_prep_sample(struct arm_spe *spe, > > struct arm_spe_record *record = &speq->decoder->record; > > > > if (!spe->timeless_decoding) > > - sample->time = speq->timestamp; > > + sample->time = tsc_to_perf_time(record->timestamp, &spe->tc); > > > I noticed that in arm_spe_recording_options() the TIME sample bit is set regardless of any options. > I don't know of a way to remove this, and if there isn't, does that mean that all the code in this > file that looks at spe->timeless_decoding is untested and has never been hit? > > Unless there is a way to get a perf file with only the AUXTRACE event and no others? I think that one > might have no timestamp set. Otherwise other events will always have timestamps so spe->timeless_decoding > is always false.
Good point. To be honest, I never noticed this issue until you mentioned this.
We should fix for the "timeless" flow; and it's questionable for the function arm_spe_recording_options(), except for setting PERF_SAMPLE_TIME, it also hard codes for setting PERF_SAMPLE_CPU and PERF_SAMPLE_TID. Might need to carefully go through this function.
Thanks, Leo
| |