From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDFE214D280; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:38:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721727520; cv=none; b=oxi1l7BARedTddb5qWi6m+W+liL9bXWArKaIiKpUHCeRFhkh1fwtz9pkGPtubpv+CT0/T7tOvBemBmyOPWZwbqbRGAShL1FsMbs30FSO5YObYsDmetRAkl4MfpqFentqOBueVtrG1DHhc4aF4+bV7e8msQlxUeZzBsPuRVcHb2w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721727520; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tTaCjEsKqRpzcHF+EyOIq9OzbUjorqzZxzkrSqU2dz8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=aasEl2YVCZCW8PhuDkE0195G4ASVicjcnIDpIXiIPTX77Ac2OqMvdUYWaFldTD7QHD7ohBPqlRnIcgxJ4IHdL0GdjstJZqTmwD+4k0FInQvfVlN1ub+1K6jlHRq403QmVdJbGjVFBP8xzQLWdCRD3pnNyOE/s6MaijXIHotRjzI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Zao6tOSY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Zao6tOSY" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1721727518; x=1753263518; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tTaCjEsKqRpzcHF+EyOIq9OzbUjorqzZxzkrSqU2dz8=; b=Zao6tOSYpVsa0KRxNduYLETeV9WqpSt8utjuUDTzlxgsExpB8P5pPN5u 4DOEf0fkD/WPEHv+eHeYyZifreBDHgbuCjxmxwcmZUN4kHShQLEbs+iph zvvW6VcmBS41bFf19LreyUbVgosBnXrhOxcbp7tU+WNIUW5Ey9GucdQIx 4tSi1yGJ4inmbRLfTkNQlmONSWSt9ITX2pDo9xZAs5ZUfovS5ayCDXg9a QwXzcFhFqbLIVaMrX2KiXerTuJsWOgevcXWoo0sm3Mb++Af+vKhcARWX9 FGrJjVVVf+7LLq5khq92LFKYNIaTbKCVrBi7Cn4hKCdFc5CcNz9w3PBis Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: bg3l6NvER6e0XAn4+JIbgA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: gujjYWv0Twa2wPYoUgtWKw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11141"; a="12664229" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,230,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="12664229" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by fmvoesa110.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jul 2024 02:38:37 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: R8uSE1D3SFSnfG/uRIwByQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: PiTE7INaRpCepkEeiegFFA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,230,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="56732595" Received: from ahunter6-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.0.2.15]) ([10.94.249.84]) by fmviesa004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jul 2024 02:38:30 -0700 Message-ID: <5444c426-a4be-4b85-b9d4-65aac78115be@intel.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:38:24 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/27] Constify tool pointers To: Ian Rogers , Namhyung Kim Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Kan Liang , John Garry , Will Deacon , James Clark , Mike Leach , Leo Yan , Suzuki K Poulose , Yicong Yang , Jonathan Cameron , Nick Terrell , Nick Desaulniers , Oliver Upton , Anshuman Khandual , Song Liu , Ilkka Koskinen , Athira Rajeev , Huacai Chen , Yanteng Si , Sun Haiyong , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20240718010023.1495687-1-irogers@google.com> <738b5c89-acb2-46a5-92a1-c36bd90abc30@intel.com> <05fa0449-4fd4-41ed-93e8-db825e48268f@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Adrian Hunter Organization: Intel Finland Oy, Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki, Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4, Domiciled in Helsinki In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 22/07/24 21:04, Ian Rogers wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:50 AM Ian Rogers wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:45 AM Namhyung Kim wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 9:06 AM Ian Rogers wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:29 AM Adrian Hunter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 19/07/24 19:26, Ian Rogers wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:51 AM Adrian Hunter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18/07/24 03:59, Ian Rogers wrote: >>>>>>>> struct perf_tool provides a set of function pointers that are called >>>>>>>> through when processing perf data. To make filling the pointers less >>>>>>>> cumbersome, if they are NULL perf_tools__fill_defaults will add >>>>>>>> default do nothing implementations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This change refactors struct perf_tool to have an init function that >>>>>>>> provides the default implementation. The special use of NULL and >>>>>>>> perf_tools__fill_defaults are removed. As a consequence the tool >>>>>>>> pointers can then all be made const, which better reflects the >>>>>>>> behavior a particular perf command would expect of the tool and to >>>>>>>> some extent can reduce the cognitive load on someone working on a >>>>>>>> command. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> v6: Rebase adding Adrian's reviewed-by/tested-by and Leo's tested-by. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The tags were really meant only for patch 1, the email that was replied to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But now for patches 2 and 3: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Adrian Hunter >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for that, you'd mentioned that pt and bts testing which is >>>>>> impacted by more than just patch 1. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at patches 4 to 25, they do not seem to offer any benefit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Instead of patch 26, presumably perf_tool__fill_defaults() could >>>>>>> be moved to __perf_session__new(), which perhaps would allow >>>>>>> patch 27 as it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I'm trying to do in the series is make it so that the tool isn't >>>>>> mutated during its use by session. Ideally we'd be passing a const >>>>>> tool to session_new, that's not possible because there's a hack to fix >>>>>> ordered events and pipe mode in session__new: >>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/util/session.c?h=perf-tools-next#n275 >>>>>> Imo, it isn't great to pass a tool to session__new where you say you >>>>>> want ordered events and then session just goes to change that for you. >>>>>> Altering that behavior was beyond the scope of this clean up, so tool >>>>>> is only const after session__new. >>>>> >>>>> Seems like a separate issue. Since the session is created >>>>> by __perf_session__new(), session->tool will always be a pointer >>>>> to a const tool once there is: >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.h b/tools/perf/util/session.h >>>>> index 7f69baeae7fb..7c8dd6956330 100644 >>>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/session.h >>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.h >>>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct perf_session { >>>>> u64 one_mmap_offset; >>>>> struct ordered_events ordered_events; >>>>> struct perf_data *data; >>>>> - struct perf_tool *tool; >>>>> + const struct perf_tool *tool; >>>>> u64 bytes_transferred; >>>>> u64 bytes_compressed; >>>>> struct zstd_data zstd_data; >>>> >>>> That's the case after these changes, but not before. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason for doing this is to make it so that when I have a tool I >>>>>> can reason that nobody is doing things to change it under my feet. >>>>> >>>>> It still can be changed by the caller of __perf_session__new(), since >>>>> the tool itself is not const. >>>>> >>>>> Anything using container_of() like: >>>>> >>>>> static int process_sample_event(const struct perf_tool *tool, >>>>> union perf_event *event, >>>>> struct perf_sample *sample, >>>>> struct evsel *evsel, >>>>> struct machine *machine) >>>>> { >>>>> struct perf_script *scr = container_of(tool, struct perf_script, tool); >>>>> >>>>> can then change scr->tool without even having to cast away const. >>>> >>>> Agreed, but such things happen in builtin_cmd where the tool is >>>> defined and presumably they know what they are doing. My objection is >>>> to code in util mutating the tool as I want the tool to have >>>> predictable behavior. As callers that take a tool can call fill in >>>> defaults (not all) then the tool has to be mutable and I don't want >>>> this to be the case. >>>> >>>>> Really, 'tool' needs to be defined as const in the first place. >>>> >>>> I'd like this. The problem is initializing all the function pointers >>>> and making such initialization robust to extra functions being added >>>> to the tool API. It can be done in a long winded way but I couldn't >>>> devise macro magic to do it. The other problem is around variables >>>> like ordered_events that can't currently be const. The patches move us >>>> closer to this being a possibility. >>>> >>>>>> My >>>>>> builtin_cmd is in charge of what the tool is rather than some code >>>>>> buried in util that thought it was going to do me a favor. The code is >>>>>> a refactor and so the benefit is intended to be for the developer and >>>>>> how they reason about the use of tool. >>>>> >>>>> It creates another question though: since there is a lot of code >>>>> before perf_tool__init() is called, does the caller mistakenly >>>>> change tool before calling perf_tool__init() >>>> >>>> If they do this their function pointers will be clobbered and their >>>> code won't behave as expected, which I'd expect to be easy to observe. >>>> In C++ if you were to initialize memory and then use the memory for a >>>> placement new to create an object which would call the constructor, >>>> the expected behavior would be that the initialized memory's values >>>> would get overridden. I see the use of _init and _exit in the code as >>>> being our poor man replacements of constructors and destructors. >>>> >>>>>> how they reason about the use of tool. We generally use _init >>>>>> functions rather than having _fill_defaults, so there is a consistency >>>>>> argument. >>>>> >>>>> The caller does not need the "defaults", so why would it set them up. >>>>> The session could just as easily do: >>>>> >>>>> if (tool->cb) >>>>> tool->cb(...); >>>>> else >>>>> cb_stub(...); >>>> >>>> Multiplied by every stub, we'd probably need a helper function, how to >>>> handle argument passing. There's nothing wrong with this as an idea >>>> but I think of this code as trying to create a visitor pattern and >>>> this is a visitor pattern with a hard time for the caller. >>>> >>>>>> I don't expect any impact in terms of performance... Moving >>>>>> perf_tool__fill_defaults to __perf_session__new had issues with the >>>>>> existing code where NULL would be written over a function pointer >>>>>> expecting the later fill_defaults to fix it up, doesn't address coding >>>>>> consistency where _init is the norm, and adds another reason the tool >>>>>> passed to session__new can't be const. >>>>> >>>>> perf_tool__init() is not a steeping stone to making 'tool' a >>>>> const in the first place. >>>> >>>> It is because the patch series gets rid of fill in defaults which is >>>> why we have a mutable tool passed around. I don't think this is up for >>>> debate as the patch series clearly goes from a non-const >>>> tool to a const tool at the end. Changing perf_tool__init to make all >>>> the function pointers NULL and then making every caller have to do a: >>>> >>>> if (tool->cb) >>>> tool->cb(...); >>>> else >>>> cb_stub(...); >>>> >>>> I think it is a less elegant solution at the end, it is also a large >>>> and more invasive change. The various refactorings to make tool const, >>>> changing the aux use of tool, etc. wouldn't be impacted by such a >>>> change but I think it is out of scope for this patch series. >>> >>> I don't think it's a large and invasive change. The tools are mostly >>> zero-initialized so we don't need to reset to NULL. And tool->cb is >>> called mostly from two functions: machines__deliver_event() and >>> perf_session__process_user_event(). Can we change them to check >>> NULL and get rid of perf_tool__fill_defaults() to keep it const? >> >> As I said above, I don't think that is good style and is out of scope >> here. It clearly can be done as follow up, but I don't see how that >> fixes the style issue. > > Just to be clear on what the style issue is. We already have code: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/builtin-record.c?h=perf-tools-next#n1461 > ``` > if (rec->buildid_all && !rec->timestamp_boundary) > rec->tool.sample = NULL; > ``` > that relies on the special behavior of NULL in a function pointer > being changed at dispatch time - a simple reading of that code would > be anyone calling the function pointer would get a segv. I'm trying to > make it so that NULL isn't magic in the context of tool and you can > simply look at the tool to understand what its behavior is, much as a > virtual method table would work if we could do proper object-oriented > development. In C, NULL or zero is often used as a special value to mean no-value. Optional callbacks that are NULL is also not remarkable.