From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Athira Jajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Petlan <mpetlan@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf stat: Hide invalid uncore event output for aggr mode
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:27:50 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9F0piZlJqVSNkma@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP-5=fUM2_M7LQa8KArn+NoMU-Jkev8FyO67E4tZ+KmG5tk6vA@mail.gmail.com>
Em Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:25:23AM -0800, Ian Rogers escreveu:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:18 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 9:33 AM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:12 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The current display code for perf stat iterates given cpus and build the
> > > > aggr map to collect the event data for the aggregation mode.
> > > >
> > > > But uncore events have their own cpu maps and it won't guarantee that
> > > > it'd match to the aggr map. For example, per-package uncore events
> > > > would generate a single value for each socket. When user asks per-core
> > > > aggregation mode, the output would contain 0 values for other cores.
> > > >
> > > > Thus it needs to check the uncore PMU's cpumask and if it matches to the
> > > > current aggregation id.
> > > >
> > > > Before:
> > > > $ sudo ./perf stat -a --per-core -e power/energy-pkg/ sleep 1
> > > >
> > > > Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> > > >
> > > > S0-D0-C0 1 3.73 Joules power/energy-pkg/
> > > > S0-D0-C1 0 <not counted> Joules power/energy-pkg/
> > > > S0-D0-C2 0 <not counted> Joules power/energy-pkg/
> > > > S0-D0-C3 0 <not counted> Joules power/energy-pkg/
> > > >
> > > > 1.001404046 seconds time elapsed
> > > >
> > > > Some events weren't counted. Try disabling the NMI watchdog:
> > > > echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
> > > > perf stat ...
> > > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
> > > >
> > > > The core 1, 2 and 3 should not be printed because the event is handled
> > > > in a cpu in the core 0 only. With this change, the output becomes like
> > > > below.
> > > >
> > > > After:
> > > > $ sudo ./perf stat -a --per-core -e power/energy-pkg/ sleep 1
> > > >
> > > > Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> > > >
> > > > S0-D0-C0 1 2.09 Joules power/energy-pkg/
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: b89761351089 ("perf stat: Update event skip condition for system-wide per-thread mode and merged uncore and hybrid events")
> > >
> > > Thanks! Tested further with mixed core and uncore events like:
> > > $ perf stat -A -a -e power/energy-pkg/,cycles sleep 1
> > > and the "<not counted>" are now nicely gone.
> >
> > Thanks for the test!
> >
> > >
> > > > Cc: Athira Jajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > Cc: Michael Petlan <mpetlan@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/perf/util/stat-display.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c b/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> > > > index 8bd8b0142630..b9dcb13650d0 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> > > > @@ -787,6 +787,22 @@ static void uniquify_counter(struct perf_stat_config *config, struct evsel *coun
> > > > uniquify_event_name(counter);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static bool check_uncore_event_aggr(struct perf_stat_config *config,
> > > > + struct evsel *counter,
> > > > + struct aggr_cpu_id *id)
> > >
> > > nit: const *s
> > > nit: check_uncore_event_aggr isn't particularly intention revealing,
> > > perhaps something more like should_print_counter. Perhaps some
> > > kernel-doc like:
> >
> > It sounds like a generic name. My intention was to check the uncore events
> > specifically. But maybe we can add other conditions like global per-thread
> > aggregation mode.
> >
> > How about this?
> >
> > /*
> > * When the event count is zero, check if the event should not be printed.
> > * For example, uncore events have dedicated CPUs to manage them,
> > * result for other CPUs should be zero and skipped.
> > */
> > static bool should_skip_zero_counter(...)
>
> lgtm, I like the idea one day there will be kernel-doc everywhere, but
> that may just be me :-)
Nope, trying to add kernel doc style is preferred, albeit difficult to
enforce and keep consistent :-\
- Arnaldo
> Thanks!
>
> > > /**
> > > * should_print_counter() - Based on id, should the current counter's
> > > value be printed.
> > > * @config: The perf stat configuration with knowledge of the aggregation mode.
> > > * @counter: The counter with its associated cpumap.
> > > * @id: The aggregation type that is being queried for printing.
> > > *
> > > * An evlist can have evsels with different cpumaps, for example, by
> > > mixing core and uncore events.
> > > * When displaying one counter the other counter shouldn't be printed.
> > > Check the counter's cpumap
> > > * to see whether for any CPU it is associated with the counter should
> > > be printed.
> > > *
> > > * Return: true for counters that should be printed.
> > > */
> > >
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct perf_cpu cpu;
> > > > + int idx;
> > > > +
> > > > + perf_cpu_map__for_each_cpu(cpu, idx, counter->core.own_cpus) {
> > >
> > > I know this is pre-existing, sorry to whine. I think we need to
> > > document cpus vs own_cpus in the perf_evsel. Normally own_cpus ==
> > > cpus, but in a case like this the difference matters and I have a hard
> > > time understanding what "own" is supposed to be conveying, and why
> > > here we don't use cpus. I also lose what the connection is with
> > > perf_evlist all_cpus, does that union own_cpus or cpus? At least there
> > > is a comment there :-D Honestly, why do we need to even have 2 cpu
> > > maps in an evsel?
> >
> > Right, maybe we can use pmu->cpus instead of evsel->core.own_cpus.
> > IIUC ->cpus is from the user and ->own_cpus is from the hardware.
> > I agree with you that having 2 cpu maps is confusing and it's been a
> > source of subtle bugs.
> >
> > Let me see what I can do..
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Namhyung
> >
> > >
> > > > + struct aggr_cpu_id own_id = config->aggr_get_id(config, cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (aggr_cpu_id__equal(id, &own_id))
> > > > + return true;
> > > > + }
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static void print_counter_aggrdata(struct perf_stat_config *config,
> > > > struct evsel *counter, int s,
> > > > struct outstate *os)
> > > > @@ -814,12 +830,21 @@ static void print_counter_aggrdata(struct perf_stat_config *config,
> > > > ena = aggr->counts.ena;
> > > > run = aggr->counts.run;
> > > >
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * Skip value 0 when enabling --per-thread globally, otherwise it will
> > > > - * have too many 0 output.
> > > > - */
> > > > - if (val == 0 && config->aggr_mode == AGGR_THREAD && config->system_wide)
> > > > - return;
> > > > + if (val == 0) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Skip value 0 when enabling --per-thread globally,
> > > > + * otherwise it will have too many 0 output.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (config->aggr_mode == AGGR_THREAD && config->system_wide)
> > > > + return;
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Skip value 0 when it's an uncore event and the given aggr id
> > > > + * does not belong to the PMU cpumask.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (counter->core.requires_cpu &&
> > > > + !check_uncore_event_aggr(config, counter, &id))
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > if (!metric_only) {
> > > > if (config->json_output)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.39.1.405.gd4c25cc71f-goog
> > > >
--
- Arnaldo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-25 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-25 8:12 [PATCH] perf stat: Hide invalid uncore event output for aggr mode Namhyung Kim
2023-01-25 17:33 ` Ian Rogers
2023-01-25 18:18 ` Namhyung Kim
2023-01-25 18:25 ` Ian Rogers
2023-01-25 18:27 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [this message]
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=Y9F0piZlJqVSNkma@kernel.org \
--to=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpetlan@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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.