From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, acme@kernel.org,
namhyung@kernel.org, Mark.Rutland@arm.com,
alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
kan.liang@linux.intel.com, james.clark@linaro.org,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] events/core: fix acoount failure for event's child_total_enable_time at task exit
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:43:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250325084320.GC604566@e132581.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z+Jdl99Y2EpDHciK@e129823.arm.com>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 07:39:03AM +0000, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
[...]
> > > After this patch, this problem is gone like:
> > >
> > > sudo ./perf stat -vvv -e armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/ -e armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/ -- stress-ng --pthread=2 -t 10s
> > > ...
> > > armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/: 15396770398 32157963940 21898169000
> > > armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/: 22428964974 32157963940 10259794940
> > >
> > > Performance counter stats for 'stress-ng --pthread=2 -t 10s':
> > >
> > > 15,396,770,398 armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/ (68.10%)
> > > 22,428,964,974 armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/ (31.90%)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
> > > Suggsted-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> >
> > /Suggsted-by/Suggested-by/
>
> Thanks ;) I'll respin.
Given this patch is a fix, it is good to add a fix tag.
> > > ---
> > > kernel/events/core.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > index 6364319e2f88..058533a50493 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > @@ -2407,6 +2407,7 @@ ctx_time_update_event(struct perf_event_context *ctx, struct perf_event *event)
> > > #define DETACH_GROUP 0x01UL
> > > #define DETACH_CHILD 0x02UL
> > > #define DETACH_DEAD 0x04UL
> > > +#define DETACH_EXIT 0x08UL
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Cross CPU call to remove a performance event
> > > @@ -2421,6 +2422,7 @@ __perf_remove_from_context(struct perf_event *event,
> > > void *info)
> > > {
> > > struct perf_event_pmu_context *pmu_ctx = event->pmu_ctx;
> > > + enum perf_event_state state = PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF;
> > > unsigned long flags = (unsigned long)info;
> > >
> > > ctx_time_update(cpuctx, ctx);
> > > @@ -2429,16 +2431,19 @@ __perf_remove_from_context(struct perf_event *event,
> > > * Ensure event_sched_out() switches to OFF, at the very least
> > > * this avoids raising perf_pending_task() at this time.
> > > */
> > > - if (flags & DETACH_DEAD)
> > > + if (flags & DETACH_EXIT)
> > > + state = PERF_EVENT_STATE_EXIT;
> > > + if (flags & DETACH_DEAD) {
> > > event->pending_disable = 1;
> > > + state = PERF_EVENT_STATE_DEAD;
> > > + }
> > > event_sched_out(event, ctx);
> > > + perf_event_set_state(event, min(event->state, state));
> >
> > Nitpick: can we move perf_event_set_state() before event_sched_out()?
> >
> > So the function handles the state machine ahead, then proceed for
> > other operations.
>
> No It couldn't. IIUC, event_sched_out() disable pmu with ACTIVE state
> event only.
> If state is changed first from active state, it wouldn't be sched out by
> event_sched_out.
Indeed ! Please ignore my comment.
> > > if (flags & DETACH_GROUP)
> > > perf_group_detach(event);
> > > if (flags & DETACH_CHILD)
> > > perf_child_detach(event);
> > > list_del_event(event, ctx);
> > > - if (flags & DETACH_DEAD)
> > > - event->state = PERF_EVENT_STATE_DEAD;
> > >
> > > if (!pmu_ctx->nr_events) {
> > > pmu_ctx->rotate_necessary = 0;
> > > @@ -13424,12 +13429,7 @@ perf_event_exit_event(struct perf_event *event, struct perf_event_context *ctx)
> > > mutex_lock(&parent_event->child_mutex);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - perf_remove_from_context(event, detach_flags);
> > > -
> > > - raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> > > - if (event->state > PERF_EVENT_STATE_EXIT)
> > > - perf_event_set_state(event, PERF_EVENT_STATE_EXIT);
> > > - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> > > + perf_remove_from_context(event, detach_flags | DETACH_EXIT);
It is good to add a description in commit log for why remove the
code chunk for updating state in the function perf_event_exit_event().
As we discussed, it uses a central place __perf_remove_from_context()
to maintain the state when event exits, this can avoid race
condition. To support this, the 'DETACH_EXIT' flag is passed to
__perf_remove_from_context() instead.
Thanks,
Leo
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Child events can be freed.
> > > --
> > > LEVI:{C3F47F37-75D8-414A-A8BA-3980EC8A46D7}
> > >
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-25 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-06 12:33 [PATCH v4] events/core: fix acoount failure for event's child_total_enable_time at task exit Yeoreum Yun
2025-03-20 8:24 ` Yeo Reum Yun
2025-03-24 19:47 ` Leo Yan
2025-03-25 7:39 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-03-25 8:43 ` Leo Yan [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=20250325084320.GC604566@e132581.arm.com \
--to=leo.yan@arm.com \
--cc=Mark.Rutland@arm.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=james.clark@linaro.org \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox