From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=101.204.27.37 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793272690; b=Tgi7VfBDSFBqqBcmA1g2uyobpEVOR2Ph0hu3nl6i12kUiGVYZLnbRqx5Ze+K8AyCFDXu 8nb8hbvJvhaDYlOTI+2hSMLVIJ0pkxjoQlULlhADNcc5KMcgTnwn/JcUIak0nJdbHGrYw Eg8SJbUQcTTJp9lwQ9l2akbakfJW04/WPrK2rOkR4l2NsIQKsJWRpiUa8LRPgVOehNCVC 6De92YMpcTMODLFkQ4ljaGQx6wg5JN6MlC0U/7gjd0kvLxsiXm1XtjBTG60/8ZDXu/PqV TDBKIq8nsmrxWeyCWPnUy6Fpf+gvkaxqwYUPMSyNHDxlGh2IeXC0tQkQN1B4bD6k4fg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793272690; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:From:To:CC: Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:X-Originating-IP:X-ClientProxiedBy; bh=CEW/fWCiUClFFtwtQpIhXXX6ntd+4T1TpmWHmmUsuZI=; b=hproxDvYRKBI2QItr+as6O8/pdpAo6iyumhtnCNomvuXu1ERuk+U7sOEMKw/C76cvLhn vNzmcPUR6eDfhLPNYEN7yyMZsZtBYB9SQr5K5D9c7LB//S6xzEpnxcv1/bcpF2ZL6I63F bllQAt35gGyyrcu5qQgVqgPtx4pBI1i1EcBE9yXOET3PX9p8h1SEWl8I4ZBfof/bR7Mug an0T0AfMOqxqOf9XI/2mrzCfm5hFEhRM3WKG7TR/YF3xWCLz+EHje11eswOONCgKLSVNe RhBT8ovhcHb9cFFRe2YoCRcF0a2RPMSfrPY7PiOZ1UohEmcrT1os8w4RignCJUihnoQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=hygon.cn; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=hygon.cn; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=101.204.27.37 Received: from spam01.hygon.cn (unknown [101.204.27.37]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2D3606A31A; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 11:17:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 5C2D3606A31A Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=hygon.cn Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=hygon.cn Received: from maildlp2.hygon.cn (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by spam01.hygon.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4jFhXn61Rfz171Yk; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 19:17:45 +0800 (CST) Received: from maildlp2.hygon.cn (unknown [172.23.18.61]) by spam01.hygon.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4jFhXl07wXz171Yk; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 19:17:43 +0800 (CST) Received: from cncheex04.Hygon.cn (unknown [172.23.18.114]) by maildlp2.hygon.cn (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 081E930004DE; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 19:17:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from hsj-2U-Workstation (172.19.24.226) by cncheex04.Hygon.cn (172.23.18.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 19:17:39 +0800 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 19:17:37 +0800 From: Huang Shijie To: , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , <1537577747@qq.com>, Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/amd/ibs: add phy_addr_only software filter for ibs_op Message-ID: References: <20260902085251.4046240-1-huangsj@hygon.cn> X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260902085251.4046240-1-huangsj@hygon.cn> X-ClientProxiedBy: cncheex05.Hygon.cn (172.23.18.115) To cncheex04.Hygon.cn (172.23.18.114) Hi Ravi, > Can you please confirm if those additional samples are genuinely valid. Yes. To answer this properly I re-ran the mysql test, and verified the physical address of every captured sample against the System RAM ranges in /proc/iomem. Setup: 384-CPU Hygon box, v7.3-based kernel, MySQL 8 under sysbench oltp_read_only, 400 threads. Each round is a fresh 60s sysbench run; after 15s of warmup, perf records ibs_op for 3s: $ perf record -e ibs_op/phy_addr_only=1/ -c 100000 --phys-data \ -p # my patch $ perf record -e ibs_op// --phys-data --filter 'phys_addr != 0' \ -c 100000 -p # your suggestion Rounds alternate p1 -> b1 -> p2 -> b2 -> p3 -> b3 so both methods see the same load conditions. Each record's phys_addr is then dumped with "perf script -F pid,tid,phys_addr" and bisect-checked against the System RAM ranges (read from /proc/iomem as root). samples phys_addr==0 non-zero in round filter captured (valid=1,MSR=0) System RAM ----- -------- --------- --------------- ----------- p1 phy_only 15710042 0.10 % 98.61 % b1 bpf 14041851 0.00 % 98.55 % p2 phy_only 15580497 0.10 % 98.56 % b2 bpf 15416187 0.00 % 98.58 % p3 phy_only 15732582 0.10 % 98.59 % b3 bpf 15447397 0.00 % 98.58 % Two observations: 1. The validity ratio is identical for both methods. Of the non-zero addresses phy_addr_only delivers, 98.6 % fall inside System RAM -- the same ratio the BPF-filtered set shows. 2. The only set-level difference is 0.10 % of samples where dc_phy_addr_valid is set but IBSDCPHYSAD reads 0. Thanks, Huang Shijie