From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix wrong assumption that LBR is only useful for sampling events
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:29:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e7e0ef26-2335-4e67-984c-705cb33ff4c3@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4Bza9H=nH4+=dDNm55X5LZp4MVSkKyBcnuNq3+8cP6qt=uQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2024-09-05 4:22 p.m., Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 12:21 PM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2024-09-05 2:00 p.m., Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> It's incorrect to assume that LBR can/should only be used with sampling
>>> events. BPF subsystem provides bpf_get_branch_snapshot() BPF helper,
>>> which expects a properly setup and activated perf event which allows
>>> kernel to capture LBR data.
>>>
>>> For instance, retsnoop tool ([0]) makes an extensive use of this
>>> functionality and sets up perf event as follows:
>>>
>>> struct perf_event_attr attr;
>>>
>>> memset(&attr, 0, sizeof(attr));
>>> attr.size = sizeof(attr);
>>> attr.type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE;
>>> attr.config = PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES;
>>> attr.sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK;
>>> attr.branch_sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL;
>>>
>>> Commit referenced in Fixes tag broke this setup by making invalid assumption
>>> that LBR is useful only for sampling events. Remove that assumption.
>>>
>>> Note, earlier we removed a similar assumption on AMD side of LBR support,
>>> see [1] for details.
>>>
>>> [0] https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop
>>> [1] 9794563d4d05 ("perf/x86/amd: Don't reject non-sampling events with configured LBR")
>>>
>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.8+
>>> Fixes: 85846b27072d ("perf/x86: Add PERF_X86_EVENT_NEEDS_BRANCH_STACK flag")
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>> index 9e519d8a810a..f82a342b8852 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>>> @@ -3972,7 +3972,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event *event)
>>> x86_pmu.pebs_aliases(event);
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (needs_branch_stack(event) && is_sampling_event(event))
>>> + if (needs_branch_stack(event))
>>> event->hw.flags |= PERF_X86_EVENT_NEEDS_BRANCH_STACK;
>>
>> To limit the LBR for a sampling event is to avoid unnecessary branch
>> stack setup for a counting event in the sample read. The above change
>> should break the sample read case.
>>
>> How about the below patch (not test)? Is it good enough for the BPF usage?
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> index 0c9c2706d4ec..8d67cbda916b 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> @@ -3972,8 +3972,12 @@ static int intel_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event
>> *event)
>> x86_pmu.pebs_aliases(event);
>> }
>>
>> - if (needs_branch_stack(event) && is_sampling_event(event))
>> - event->hw.flags |= PERF_X86_EVENT_NEEDS_BRANCH_STACK;
>> + if (needs_branch_stack(event)) {
>> + /* Avoid branch stack setup for counting events in SAMPLE READ */
>> + if (is_sampling_event(event) ||
>> + !(event->attr.sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_READ))
>> + event->hw.flags |= PERF_X86_EVENT_NEEDS_BRANCH_STACK;
>> + }
>>
>
> I'm sure it will be fine for my use case, as I set only
> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK.
>
> But I'll leave it up to perf subsystem experts to decide if this
> condition makes sense, because looking at what PERF_SAMPLE_READ is:
>
> PERF_SAMPLE_READ
> Record counter values for all events in a group,
> not just the group leader.
>
> It's not clear why this would disable LBR, if specified.
It only disables the counting event with SAMPLE_READ, since LBR is only
read in the sampling event's overflow.
Thanks,
Kan
>
>> if (branch_sample_counters(event)) {
>> struct perf_event *leader, *sibling;
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kan
>>>
>>> if (branch_sample_counters(event)) {
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-05 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-05 18:00 [PATCH] perf/x86: fix wrong assumption that LBR is only useful for sampling events Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-05 19:20 ` Liang, Kan
2024-09-05 20:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-05 20:29 ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2024-09-05 20:33 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-09 16:02 ` Liang, Kan
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=e7e0ef26-2335-4e67-984c-705cb33ff4c3@linux.intel.com \
--to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x86@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.