From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Ian Rogers" <irogers@google.com>
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] perf sysinfo: Add sysinfo subcommand, documentation, and test
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:45:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-174975@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016213258.945737-3-irogers@google.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] perf sysinfo: broken perf.data metrics lookup in print_system_summary()
- [Medium] perf sysinfo: inaccurate mem_events detection in print_system_summary()
--
commit eeafacdf44b45876a713b51b3eacc1d62e8dae1a
Author: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
perf sysinfo: Add sysinfo subcommand, documentation, and test
This commit adds the perf sysinfo subcommand to display and probe PMU and
system performance monitoring capabilities on a live system or from a
perf.data file.
> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-sysinfo.c b/tools/perf/builtin-sysinfo.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..8bc13f3dedb0b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-sysinfo.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,1958 @@
[ ... ]
> +static void print_system_summary(FILE *fp, const struct perf_session *session,
> + bool probed, bool leading_newline)
> +{
> + const struct pmu_metrics_table *mtable;
[ ... ]
> + while ((pmu = perf_pmus__scan_skip_duplicates(pmu)) != NULL) {
> + size_t pmu_events = perf_pmu__num_events(pmu);
> + size_t sysfs_ev = pmu->sysfs_aliases;
> + size_t json_ev = pmu_events > sysfs_ev ? pmu_events - sysfs_ev : 0;
> +
> + total_pmus++;
> + total_events += pmu_events;
> + total_sysfs_events += sysfs_ev;
> + total_json_events += json_ev;
> +
> + if (pmu->is_core) {
> + struct perf_pmu_caps *br_cap;
> +
> + add_pmu_display_name(core_pmus, pmu);
> + perf_pmu__caps_parse(pmu);
> + br_cap = perf_pmu__get_cap(pmu, "branches");
> + if (br_cap && br_cap->value) {
> + int depth = atoi(br_cap->value);
> +
> + if (depth > max_br_depth)
> + max_br_depth = depth;
> + }
> + if (probed && pmu->probed.checked && pmu->probed.open_supported) {
> + if (pmu->probed.can_sample)
> + core_can_sample = true;
> + if (pmu->probed.max_precise > 0) {
> + core_precise = true;
> + if (pmu->probed.max_precise > max_precise)
> + max_precise = pmu->probed.max_precise;
> + }
> + if (pmu->probed.can_user_rdpmc)
> + core_rdpmc = true;
> + if (pmu->probed.can_branch_stack)
> + core_branch_stack = true;
> + if (pmu->probed.mem_events_mask)
> + core_mem_events = true;
> + if (pmu->probed.can_leader_sampling)
> + core_leader_sampling = true;
> + } else {
> + core_can_sample = true;
> + if (pmu->max_precise > 0) {
> + core_precise = true;
> + if (pmu->max_precise > max_precise)
> + max_precise = pmu->max_precise;
> + }
> + if (max_br_depth > 0)
> + core_branch_stack = true;
> + if (pmu->mem_events)
> + core_mem_events = true;
> + }
[Severity: Medium]
Can this misreport core_mem_events in print_system_summary()?
On AMD x86 and ARM64 systems, pmu->mem_events is attached to non-core PMUs
(ibs_op and arm_spe_*, where pmu->is_core is false), while the core PMU has
pmu->mem_events == NULL. Checking mem_events only inside the if (pmu->is_core)
block causes the summary to always report memory profiling events as missing
on those architectures.
Conversely, in the unprobed else branch, checking if (pmu->mem_events)
without calling perf_pmu__mem_events_init_pmu(pmu) (unlike
print_mem_events_static()) will set core_mem_events = true whenever
perf_pmu__arch_init() assigns a static perf_mem_events array to a core PMU,
even if none of the events (such as events/mem-loads or events/mem-stores)
are actually supported in sysfs.
> + } else if (pmu->type == PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE) {
> + if (!probed || !pmu->probed.checked || pmu->probed.can_sample)
> + has_sw_sampling = true;
> + }
> +
> + if (pmu->auxtrace)
> + add_pmu_display_name(aux_pmus, pmu);
> + if (is_mem_bw_pmu_name(pmu->name))
> + add_pmu_display_name(mem_bw_pmus, pmu);
> + if (is_io_bw_pmu_name(pmu->name))
> + add_pmu_display_name(io_bw_pmus, pmu);
> + }
> +
> + if (session && session->header.env.arch && session->header.env.cpuid)
> + mtable = find_core_metrics_table(session->header.env.arch,
> + session->header.env.cpuid);
> + else
> + mtable = pmu_metrics_table__find();
[Severity: Medium]
Will find_core_metrics_table() fail to match the metrics table when reading
from a perf.data file here?
session->header.env.arch contains the raw uts.machine string from
HEADER_ARCH (such as "x86_64", "aarch64", or "ppc64le"), whereas
pmu_events_map[].arch uses the normalized architecture name returned by
perf_env__arch(&session->header.env) ("x86", "arm64", "powerpc", etc.).
In addition, on x86, session->header.env.cpuid stores "vendor,family,model,step"
in decimal, whereas pmu_events_map and strcmp_cpuid_str() expect the
"vendor-family-HEXMODEL-HEXSTEP" format. In perf_pmus__read_from_env() in
tools/perf/util/pmus.c, both conversions are performed before calling
find_core_events_table():
if (env->cpuid) {
char cpuid_str[128];
char vendor[32];
unsigned int family, model, step;
const char *cpuid = env->cpuid;
if (sscanf(env->cpuid, "%31[^,],%u,%u,%u",
vendor, &family, &model, &step) == 4) {
snprintf(cpuid_str, sizeof(cpuid_str), "%s-%u-%X-%X",
vendor, family, model, step);
cpuid = cpuid_str;
}
core_table = find_core_events_table(perf_env__arch(env), cpuid);
}
Also, if session is non-NULL (-i perf.data) but either arch or cpuid is NULL
in the header, falling into the else branch calls pmu_metrics_table__find(),
which queries the live host CPU's metrics table instead of treating the
recorded environment as having no core metrics table.
[ ... ]
> + while ((pmu = show_all ? perf_pmus__scan(pmu) :
> + perf_pmus__scan_skip_duplicates(pmu)) != NULL) {
> + if (!pmu_matches_filters(pmu, argc, argv))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (do_probe && !input_name &&
> + (show_pmus || pmu->is_core || pmu->type == PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE))
> + perf_pmu__probe(pmu);
[Severity: Medium]
Related to the core_mem_events check in print_system_summary(), when
show_pmus is false, should this condition also probe PMUs that have
pmu->mem_events != NULL so that non-core memory profiling PMUs (such as
ibs_op and arm_spe_*) are probed for the default summary output?
[ ... ]
> +}
[ ... ]
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261016213258.945737-1-irogers@google.com?part=2
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 21:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 21:32 [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] perf sysinfo: Add subcommand to probe and summarize PMU capabilities Ian Rogers
2026-10-16 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] perf pmus: Add PMU environment loading and live capability probing Ian Rogers
2026-10-16 21:56 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] perf sysinfo: Add sysinfo subcommand, documentation, and test Ian Rogers
2026-10-16 21:45 ` sashiko-bot [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=sashiko-outbox-174975@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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