From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com,
adrian.hunter@intel.com, eranian@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] perf: Support branch events logging
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 00:01:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230414220106.GC778423@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2428e6a2-9578-1e1d-bdef-ffcc87301503@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 04:34:45PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > I never understood the whole order thing. What was it trying to do?
>
> Let's say we have three events with the LBR event logging feature as below.
> perf record -e branches,branches,instructions:ppp -j any,event
>
> The counter 0 will be assigned to instructions:ppp, since the PDist is
> only supported on GP 0 & 1.
> The count 1 & 2 will be assigned to the other two branches.
>
> If branches occurs 1 time and instructions occurs 3 times in a LBR
> block, the LBR_INFO will have 0b010111 (counter order).
>
> But as you can see from the perf command, the first event is actually
> branches. Without the event IDs information, perf tool will interpret
> that branches 3 branches 1 and instructions:ppp 1. That's wrong.
>
> If there are multiple users, the situation becomes even worse.
But this makes no sense what so ever; in this case you have no control
over what events you'll actually get in your LBR. Could be none of the
events you're interested in end up in 0-3 but instead land on 4-7.
> >> But if we have two groups with LBR event, the order information is still
> >> required. Why we still want to group things?
> >
> > Why would you need that; what is that whole order nonsense about?
> >
> > {e1, e2, e3, e4}, {e5, e6, e7, e8} with e1 and e5 both having LBR on
> > just works no?
> >
> > Since they have LBR and that extra sample flag they all get a 0-3
> > constraint.
> >
> > Since both e1 and e5 use LBR, they're mutually exclusive, either e1 or
> > e5 group runs.
>
> It's possible that someone pins an event using LBR, and set more than 4
> events for logging, e0:D,{e1, e2},{e3, e4},{e5, e6}. If so, those events
> could do multiplexing. Without the event IDs information, perf tool has
> no idea how to interpret the information.
Yeah, don't do this. There is no guarantee what so ever you'll get any
of those events in the 0-3 range.
You really *must* make then a group such that perf knows what events to
associated with the LBR event and constain them to the 0-3 range of
PMCs.
If you want multiplexing, simply create multiple groups with an LBR
event in them.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-14 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-10 20:43 [PATCH 1/6] perf/x86/intel: Add Grand Ridge and Sierra Forest kan.liang
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 2/6] perf: Support branch events logging kan.liang
2023-04-14 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 13:35 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-14 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 15:56 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-14 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 17:53 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-14 19:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 20:34 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-14 22:01 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-04-14 22:47 ` Andi Kleen
2023-04-17 11:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-17 13:37 ` Andi Kleen
2023-04-17 14:07 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-17 11:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-17 13:41 ` Andi Kleen
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 3/6] perf/x86/intel: Support LBR event logging kan.liang
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 4/6] tools headers UAPI: Sync include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h header with the kernel kan.liang
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 5/6] perf tools: Add branch event knob kan.liang
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 6/6] perf tools: Support PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EVENT_IDS kan.liang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230414220106.GC778423@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.