Re: [Patch v2 3/5] perf x86/topdown: Don't move topdown metrics events when sorting events

Mi, Dapeng
2024-07-10T09:40:57Z

On 7/10/2024 6:37 AM, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 9:18 PM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/8/2024 11:08 PM, Ian Rogers wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 12:40 AM Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> when running below perf command, we say error is reported.
>>>>
>>>> perf record -e "{slots,instructions,topdown-retiring}:S" -vv -C0 sleep 1
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> perf_event_attr:
>>>> type 4 (cpu)
>>>> size 168
>>>> config 0x400 (slots)
>>>> sample_type IP|TID|TIME|READ|CPU|PERIOD|IDENTIFIER
>>>> read_format ID|GROUP|LOST
>>>> disabled 1
>>>> sample_id_all 1
>>>> exclude_guest 1
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> sys_perf_event_open: pid -1 cpu 0 group_fd -1 flags 0x8 = 5
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> perf_event_attr:
>>>> type 4 (cpu)
>>>> size 168
>>>> config 0x8000 (topdown-retiring)
>>>> { sample_period, sample_freq } 4000
>>>> sample_type IP|TID|TIME|READ|CPU|PERIOD|IDENTIFIER
>>>> read_format ID|GROUP|LOST
>>>> freq 1
>>>> sample_id_all 1
>>>> exclude_guest 1
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> sys_perf_event_open: pid -1 cpu 0 group_fd 5 flags 0x8
>>>> sys_perf_event_open failed, error -22
>>>>
>>>> Error:
>>>> The sys_perf_event_open() syscall returned with 22 (Invalid argument) for event (topdown-retiring).
>>>>
>>>> The reason of error is that the events are regrouped and
>>>> topdown-retiring event is moved to closely after the slots event and
>>>> topdown-retiring event needs to do the sampling, but Intel PMU driver
>>>> doesn't support to sample topdown metrics events.
>>>>
>>>> For topdown metrics events, it just requires to be in a group which has
>>>> slots event as leader. It doesn't require topdown metrics event must be
>>>> closely after slots event. Thus it's a overkill to move topdown metrics
>>>> event closely after slots event in events regrouping and furtherly cause
>>>> the above issue.
>>>>
>>>> Thus delete the code that moving topdown metrics events to fix the
>>>> issue.
>>> I think this is wrong. The topdown events may not be in a group, such
>>> cases can come from metrics due to grouping constraints, and so they
>>> must be sorted together so that they may be gathered into a group to
>>> avoid the perf event opens failing for ungrouped topdown events. I'm
>>> not understanding what these patches are trying to do, if you want to
>>> prioritize the event for leader sampling why not modify it to compare
>> Per my understanding, this change doesn't break anything. The events
>> regrouping can be divided into below several cases.
>>
>> a. all events in a group
>>
>> perf stat -e "{instructions,topdown-retiring,slots}" -C0 sleep 1
>> WARNING: events were regrouped to match PMUs
>>
>> Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0':
>>
>> 15,066,240 slots
>> 1,899,760 instructions
>> 2,126,998 topdown-retiring
>>
>> 1.045783464 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> In this case, slots event would be adjusted as the leader event and all
>> events are still in same group.
>>
>> b. all events not in a group
>>
>> perf stat -e "instructions,topdown-retiring,slots" -C0 sleep 1
>> WARNING: events were regrouped to match PMUs
>>
>> Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0':
>>
>> 2,045,561 instructions
>> 17,108,370 slots
>> 2,281,116 topdown-retiring
>>
>> 1.045639284 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> In this case, slots and topdown-retiring are placed into a group and slots
>> is the group leader. instructions event is outside the group.
>>
>> c. slots event in group but topdown metric events outside the group
>>
>> perf stat -e "{instructions,slots},topdown-retiring" -C0 sleep 1
>> WARNING: events were regrouped to match PMUs
>>
>> Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0':
>>
>> 20,323,878 slots
>> 2,634,884 instructions
>> 3,028,656 topdown-retiring
>>
>> 1.045076380 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> In this case, topdown-retiring event is placed into previous group and
>> slots is adjusted to leader event.
>>
>> d. multiple event groups
>>
>> perf stat -e "{instructions,slots},{topdown-retiring}" -C0 sleep 1
>> WARNING: events were regrouped to match PMUs
>>
>> Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0':
>>
>> 26,319,024 slots
>> 2,427,791 instructions
>> 2,683,508 topdown-retiring
>>
>> 1.045495830 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> In this case, the two groups are merged to one group and slots event is
>> adjusted as leader.
>>
>> The key point of this patch is that it's unnecessary to move topdown
>> metrics events closely after slots event. It's a overkill since Intel core
>> PMU driver doesn't require that. Intel PMU driver just requires topdown
>> metrics events are in a group where slots event is the group leader, and
>> worse the movement for topdown metrics events causes the issue in the
>> commit message mentioned.
>>
>> This patch doesn't block to regroup topdown metrics event. It just removes
>> the unnecessary movement for topdown metrics events.
> But you will get the same behavior because of the non-arch dependent
> force group index - I guess you don't care as the sample read only
> happens when you have a group.
>
> I'm thinking of cases like (which admittedly is broken):
> ```
> $ perf stat -e "{slots,instructions},cycles,topdown-fe-bound" -a sleep 0.1
> [sudo] password for irogers:
>
> Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
>
> 2,589,345,900 slots
> 852,492,838 instructions
> 583,525,372 cycles
> <not supported> topdown-fe-bound
>
> 0.103930790 seconds time elapsed
> ```

I run the upstream code (commit 73e931504f8e0d42978bfcda37b323dbbd1afc08)
without this patchset, I see same issue.

perf stat -e "{slots,instructions},cycles,topdown-fe-bound" -a sleep 0.1

Performance counter stats for 'system wide':

262,448,922      slots
29,630,373      instructions
43,891,902      cycles
<not supported>      topdown-fe-bound

0.150369560 seconds time elapsed

#perf -v
perf version 6.10.rc6.g73e931504f8e

This issue is not caused by this patchset.

> As the slots event is grouped there's no force group index on it, we
> want to shuffle the topdown-fe-bound into the group so we want it to
> compare as less than cycles - ie we're comparing topdown events with
> non topdown events and trying to shuffle the topdown events first.

Current evlist__cmp() won't really swap the order of cycles and
topdown-fe-bound.

if (lhs_sort_idx != rhs_sort_idx)
return lhs_sort_idx - rhs_sort_idx;

When comparing cycles and topdown-fe-bound events, lhs_sort_idx is 2 and
rhs_sort_idx is 3, so the swap won't happen.

So the event sequence after sorting is still "slots, instructions ,cycles,
topdown-fe-bound". Both cycles and topdown-fe-bound events won't be placed
into the group.

>
> Thanks,
> Ian
>
>
>
>>> first?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c | 5 -----
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c
>>>> index 332e8907f43e..6046981d61cf 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c
>>>> @@ -82,11 +82,6 @@ int arch_evlist__cmp(const struct evsel *lhs, const struct evsel *rhs)
>>>> return -1;
>>>> if (arch_is_topdown_slots(rhs))
>>>> return 1;
>>>> - /* Followed by topdown events. */
>>>> - if (arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && !arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs))
>>>> - return -1;
>>>> - if (!arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs))
>>>> - return 1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /* Default ordering by insertion index. */
>>>> --
>>>> 2.40.1
>>>>