Re: [PATCH v3 01/18] perf metricgroup: Add care to picking the evsel for displaying a metric

["Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>]

On 11/12/2025 3:05 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:20:30AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 12:15 AM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2025 12:04 PM, Ian Rogers wrote:
>>>> Rather than using the first evsel in the matched events, try to find
>>>> the least shared non-tool evsel. The aim is to pick the first evsel
>>>> that typifies the metric within the list of metrics.
>>>>
>>>> This addresses an issue where Default metric group metrics may lose
>>>> their counter value due to how the stat displaying hides counters for
>>>> default event/metric output.
>>>>
>>>> For a metricgroup like TopdownL1 on an Intel Alderlake the change is,
>>>> before there are 4 events with metrics:
>>>> ```
>>>> $ perf stat -M topdownL1 -a sleep 1
>>>>
>>>>  Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
>>>>
>>>>      7,782,334,296      cpu_core/TOPDOWN.SLOTS/          #     10.4 %  tma_bad_speculation
>>>>                                                   #     19.7 %  tma_frontend_bound
>>>>      2,668,927,977      cpu_core/topdown-retiring/       #     35.7 %  tma_backend_bound
>>>>                                                   #     34.1 %  tma_retiring
>>>>        803,623,987      cpu_core/topdown-bad-spec/
>>>>        167,514,386      cpu_core/topdown-heavy-ops/
>>>>      1,555,265,776      cpu_core/topdown-fe-bound/
>>>>      2,792,733,013      cpu_core/topdown-be-bound/
>>>>        279,769,310      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_RETIRING.ALL/   #     12.2 %  tma_retiring
>>>>                                                   #     15.1 %  tma_bad_speculation
>>>>        457,917,232      cpu_atom/CPU_CLK_UNHALTED.CORE/  #     38.4 %  tma_backend_bound
>>>>                                                   #     34.2 %  tma_frontend_bound
>>>>        783,519,226      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_FE_BOUND.ALL/
>>>>         10,790,192      cpu_core/INT_MISC.UOP_DROPPING/
>>>>        879,845,633      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_BE_BOUND.ALL/
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> After there are 6 events with metrics:
>>>> ```
>>>> $ perf stat -M topdownL1 -a sleep 1
>>>>
>>>>  Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
>>>>
>>>>      2,377,551,258      cpu_core/TOPDOWN.SLOTS/          #      7.9 %  tma_bad_speculation
>>>>                                                   #     36.4 %  tma_frontend_bound
>>>>        480,791,142      cpu_core/topdown-retiring/       #     35.5 %  tma_backend_bound
>>>>        186,323,991      cpu_core/topdown-bad-spec/
>>>>         65,070,590      cpu_core/topdown-heavy-ops/      #     20.1 %  tma_retiring
>>>>        871,733,444      cpu_core/topdown-fe-bound/
>>>>        848,286,598      cpu_core/topdown-be-bound/
>>>>        260,936,456      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_RETIRING.ALL/   #     12.4 %  tma_retiring
>>>>                                                   #     17.6 %  tma_bad_speculation
>>>>        419,576,513      cpu_atom/CPU_CLK_UNHALTED.CORE/
>>>>        797,132,597      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_FE_BOUND.ALL/   #     38.0 %  tma_frontend_bound
>>>>          3,055,447      cpu_core/INT_MISC.UOP_DROPPING/
>>>>        671,014,164      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_BE_BOUND.ALL/   #     32.0 %  tma_backend_bound
>>>> ```
>>> It looks the output of cpu_core and cpu_atom events are mixed together,
>>> like the "cpu_core/INT_MISC.UOP_DROPPING/". Could we resort the events and
>>> separate the cpu_core and cpu_atom events output? It would make the output
>>> more read-friendly. Thanks.
>> So the metrics are tagged as to not group the events:
>> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/alderlake/adl-metrics.json?h=perf-tools-next#n117
>> Running with each metric causes the output to be:
>> ```
>> $ perf stat -M tma_bad_speculation,tma_backend_bound,tma_frontend_bound,tma_retiring
>> -a sleep 1
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
>>
>>      1,615,145,897      cpu_core/TOPDOWN.SLOTS/          #      8.1 %
>> tma_bad_speculation
>>                                                   #     42.5 %
>> tma_frontend_bound       (49.89%)
>>        243,037,087      cpu_core/topdown-retiring/       #     34.5 %
>> tma_backend_bound        (49.89%)
>>        129,341,306      cpu_core/topdown-bad-spec/
>>                          (49.89%)
>>          2,679,894      cpu_core/INT_MISC.UOP_DROPPING/
>>                          (49.89%)
>>        696,940,348      cpu_core/topdown-fe-bound/
>>                          (49.89%)
>>        563,319,011      cpu_core/topdown-be-bound/
>>                          (49.89%)
>>      1,795,034,847      cpu_core/slots/
>>                          (50.11%)
>>        262,140,961      cpu_core/topdown-retiring/
>>                          (50.11%)
>>         44,589,349      cpu_core/topdown-heavy-ops/      #     14.4 %
>> tma_retiring             (50.11%)
>>        160,987,341      cpu_core/topdown-bad-spec/
>>                          (50.11%)
>>        778,250,364      cpu_core/topdown-fe-bound/
>>                          (50.11%)
>>        622,499,674      cpu_core/topdown-be-bound/
>>                          (50.11%)
>>         90,849,750      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_RETIRING.ALL/   #      8.1 %
>> tma_retiring
>>                                                   #     17.2 %
>> tma_bad_speculation
>>        223,878,243      cpu_atom/CPU_CLK_UNHALTED.CORE/
>>        423,068,733      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_FE_BOUND.ALL/   #     37.8 %
>> tma_frontend_bound
>>        413,413,499      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_BE_BOUND.ALL/   #     36.9 %
>> tma_backend_bound
>> ```
>> so you can see that it is the effect of not grouping the events that
>> leads to the cpu_core and cpu_atom split.
>>
>> The code that does sorting/fixing/adding of events, primarily to fix
>> topdown, is parse_events__sort_events_and_fix_groups:
>> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c?h=perf-tools-next#n2030
>> but I've tried to make that code respect the incoming evsel list order
>> because if a user specifies an order then they generally expect it to
>> be respected (unless invalid or because of topdown events). For
>> --metric-only the event order doesn't really matter.
>>
>> Anyway, I think trying to fix this is out of scope for this patch
>> series, although I agree with you about the readability. The behavior
>> here matches old behavior such as:
>> ```
>> $ perf --version
>> perf version 6.16.12
>> $ perf stat -M TopdownL1 -a sleep 1
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
>>
>>     11,086,754,658      cpu_core/TOPDOWN.SLOTS/          #     27.1 %
>> tma_backend_bound
>>                                                   #      7.5 %
>> tma_bad_speculation
>>                                                   #     36.5 %
>> tma_frontend_bound
>>                                                   #     28.9 %
>> tma_retiring
>>      3,219,475,010      cpu_core/topdown-retiring/
>>        820,655,931      cpu_core/topdown-bad-spec/
>>        418,883,912      cpu_core/topdown-heavy-ops/
>>      4,082,884,459      cpu_core/topdown-fe-bound/
>>      3,012,532,414      cpu_core/topdown-be-bound/
>>      1,030,171,196      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_RETIRING.ALL/   #     17.4 %
>> tma_retiring
>>                                                   #     16.5 %
>> tma_bad_speculation
>>      1,185,093,601      cpu_atom/CPU_CLK_UNHALTED.CORE/  #     29.8 %
>> tma_backend_bound
>>                                                   #     36.4 %
>> tma_frontend_bound
>>      2,154,914,153      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_FE_BOUND.ALL/
>>         14,988,684      cpu_core/INT_MISC.UOP_DROPPING/
>>      1,763,486,868      cpu_atom/TOPDOWN_BE_BOUND.ALL/
>>
>>        1.004103365 seconds time elapsed
>> ```
>> ie the cpu_core and cpu_atom mixing of events isn't a regression
>> introduced here. There isn't a simple fix for the ordering, as we
>> don't want to mess up the non-metric cases. I'm happy if you think
>> things can be otherwise to make a change.
> Agreed and it should be handled in a separate patch (series).  Let's fix
> problems one at a time.

It makes sense. Thanks.


>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>
>