Re: [Patch v5 0/6] Bug fixes on topdown events reordering

Namhyung Kim
2024-10-03T16:45:19Z

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:55:22AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 7:57 AM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2024-10-02 8:57 p.m., Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 5:00 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 03:32:04PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 2:02 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 08:47:06 +0000, Dapeng Mi wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Changes:
> > >>>>> v5 -> v6:
> > >>>>> * no function change.
> > >>>>> * rebase patchset to latest code of perf-tool-next tree.
> > >>>>> * Add Kan's reviewed-by tag.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> History:
> > >>>>> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240816122938.32228-1-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com/
> > >>>>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240712170339.185824-1-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com/
> > >>>>> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240708144204.839486-1-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com/
> > >>>>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240702224037.343958-1-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Applied to perf-tools-next, thanks!
> > >>>
> > >>> I disagreed with an early patch set and the issue wasn't resolved. Specifically:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/commit/?h=perf-tools-next&id=3b5edc0421e2598a0ae7f0adcd592017f37e3cdf
> > >>> ```
> > >>> /* 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))
> > >>> + /*
> > >>> + * Move topdown events forward only when topdown events
> > >>> + * are not in same group with previous event.
> > >>> + */
> > >>> + if (!arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs) &&
> > >>> + lhs->core.leader != rhs->core.leader)
> > >>> return 1;
> > >>> ```
> > >>> Is a broken comparator as the lhs then rhs behavior varies from the
> > >>> rhs then lhs behavior. The qsort implementation can randomly order the
> > >>> events.
> > >>> Please drop/revert.
> > >>
> > >> Can you please provide an example when it's broken? I'm not sure how it
> > >> can produce new errors, but it seems to fix a specific problem. Do you
> > >> have a new test failure after this change?
> > >
> > > It may work with a particular sort routine in a particular library
> > > today, the issue is that if the sort routine were say changed from:
> > >
> > > if (cmp(a, b) < 0)
> > >
> > > to:
> > >
> > > if (cmp(b, a) > 0)
> > >
> > > the sort would vary with this change even though such a change in the
> > > sorting code is a no-op. It is fundamental algorithms that this code
> > > is broken, I'm not going to spend the time finding a list of
> > > instructions and a sort routine to demonstrate this.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure I fully understand. But just want to mention that the
> > change only impacts the Topdown perf metric group, which is only
> > available for the ICL and later p-core. Nothing will change if no perf
> > metrics topdown events are used. Very limited impact.
>
> How is breaking every ICL and later Intel model (excluding atoms)
> limited impact?

I guess he meant it's only for Topdown metric groups with an incorrect
order on those models.

>
> > I like the patch set is because it provides examples and tests to cover
> > the possible combination of the slots event and topdown metrics events.
> > So we will have a clear expectation for different combinations caused by
> > the perf metrics mess.
>
> Tests are good. I have no problem with the change, possibly it is
> inefficient, except that hacking a sort comparator to not be symmetric
> is broken.

Ok.

>
> > If the algorithms cannot be changed, can you please give some
> > suggestions, especially for the sample read failure?
>
> So this is symmetric:
> ```
> 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;
> ```
> That is were lhs and rhs swapped then you'd get the expected comparison order.
> ```
> if (arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && !arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs) &&
> lhs->core.leader != rhs->core.leader)
> return -1;
> if (!arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs) &&
> lhs->core.leader != rhs->core.leader)
> return 1;
> ```
> Is symmetric as well.
> ```
> if (arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && !arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs))
> return -1;
> if (!arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs) &&
> lhs->core.leader != rhs->core.leader)
> return 1;
> ```
> (what this patch does) is not symmetric as the group leader impacts
> the greater-than case but not the less-than case.
>
> It is not uncommon to see in a sort function:
> ```
> if (cmp(a, b) <= 0) {
> assert(cmp(b,a) >= 0 && "check for unstable/broken compare functions");
> ```

I see. So are you proposing this?

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c
index 438e4639fa892304..46884fa17fe658a6 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/evlist.c
@@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ int arch_evlist__cmp(const struct evsel *lhs, const struct evsel *rhs)
if (arch_is_topdown_slots(rhs))
return 1;
/* Followed by topdown events. */
- if (arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && !arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs))
+ if (arch_is_topdown_metrics(lhs) && !arch_is_topdown_metrics(rhs) &&
+ lhs->core.leader != rhs->core.leader)
return -1;
/*
* Move topdown events forward only when topdown events

Dapeng and Kan, can you verify if it's ok? My quick tests look ok.

> and we could add this here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/lib/list_sort.c?h=perf-tools-next#n22
> Try searching up "Comparison method violates its general contract"
> which is what Java throws when its TimSort implementation detects
> cases like this. If you break the comparator you can get the sort into
> an infinite loop - maybe that's enough of an indication that the code
> is broken and you don't need the exception. As is common in kernel
> code we're missing guard rails in list_sort, were the comparator
> passed to qsort then expectations on breakage are a roll of the dice.
>
> I believe when I originally gave this feedback I didn't think the fix
> was to do it in the comparator and maybe an additional pass over the
> list was going to be necessary. Basically a sort needs to be a sort
> and it can't kind of be a sort depending on the order of the
> comparison, this is just incurring tech debt and when a sort tweak
> happens everything will break. As the usual chump cleaning up this
> tech debt I'd prefer it wasn't introduced.

Sorry, I think I didn't follow the previous thread and missed your
feedback.

>
> Fwiw, I refuse to carry this change in:
> https://github.com/googleprodkernel/linux-perf/commits/google_tools_master/
> and if the tests break as a consequence then the appropriate thing is
> to revert those too. Linus/upstream maintainers follow a different
> plan and that's their business, I can't build off of this code.
>
> It is unclear to me why we get patches that have been pointed out to
> be broken rebased/resent repeatedly without the broken-ness corrected.
> For example, the abuse of aggregation for metrics in perf script. At
> least point to the disagreement in the commit message, call me an
> idiot, and let the maintainer make an informed or uninformed choice. I
> am frequently an idiot and I apologize for all those cases, to the
> best of my knowledge this isn't one of them.

Yeah I understand your point and it sounds reasonable. Thanks for your
feedback. I don't think I'll revert the change though, we can add the
fix on top instead.

Thanks,
Namhyung