From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com, pavel.gerasimov@intel.com,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 03/13] perf tools: Support new branch sample type for LBR TOS
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:17:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <91cf3b08-c0ec-9bcd-669e-c5c91bda71ce@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191119213124.GO3079@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 11/19/2019 4:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:00:00AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 6:35 AM <kan.liang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>>> index bb7b271397a6..c2da61c9ace7 100644
>>> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>>> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>>> @@ -180,7 +180,10 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type_shift {
>>>
>>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_TYPE_SAVE_SHIFT = 16, /* save branch type */
>>>
>>> - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX_SHIFT /* non-ABI */
>>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX_SHIFT = 17, /* non-ABI */
>>> +
>>> + /* PMU specific */
>>
>> No! You must abstract this.
>>
>>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_LBR_TOS_SHIFT = 63, /* save LBR TOS */
>>> };
>>>
>> I don't like this because this is too Intel specific.
>> What is the meaning of this field? You need a clear definition so it can be used
>> with other PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_* implementations.
>
> I also detest the MSB usage. Normal pattern is that any bit >= MAX
> will be rejected by the kernel.
>
OK. I will still use bit 17 for the new branch sample type.
I can change the Intel specific name, and use a generic name. How about
PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PMU_SPECIFIC?
If we make it generic, there will be another question. How much space
should we reserve for this new branch sample type?
For LBR TOS, we only need a u64.
I'm not sure if it's good enough for other platforms.
Or maybe we want a flexible space as below?
@@ -849,7 +854,12 @@ enum perf_event_type {
* char data[size];}&& PERF_SAMPLE_RAW
*
* { u64 nr;
- * { u64 from, to, flags } lbr[nr];} &&
PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
+ * { u64 from, to, flags } lbr[nr];
+ *
+ * # only available if PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PMU_SPECIFIC is set
+ * u64 nr;
+ * u64 data[nr];
+ * } && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
*
* { u64 abi; # enum perf_sample_regs_abi
* u64 regs[weight(mask)]; } &&
PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_USER
Thanks,
Kan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-19 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-19 14:33 [PATCH V4 00/13] Stitch LBR call stack kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:33 ` [PATCH V4 01/13] perf/core: Add new branch sample type for LBR TOS kan.liang
2019-11-19 19:02 ` Stephane Eranian
2019-11-19 22:25 ` Liang, Kan
2019-11-19 22:51 ` Stephane Eranian
2019-11-20 15:06 ` Liang, Kan
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 02/13] perf/x86/intel: Output LBR TOS information kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 03/13] perf tools: Support new branch sample type for LBR TOS kan.liang
2019-11-19 19:00 ` Stephane Eranian
2019-11-19 21:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-19 22:17 ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 04/13] perf header: Add check for event attr kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 05/13] perf pmu: Add support for PMU capabilities kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 06/13] perf header: Support CPU " kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 07/13] perf machine: Refine the function for LBR call stack reconstruction kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 08/13] perf tools: Stitch LBR call stack kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 09/13] perf report: Add option to enable the LBR stitching approach kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 10/13] perf script: " kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 11/13] perf top: " kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [PATCH V4 12/13] perf c2c: " kan.liang
2019-11-19 14:34 ` [RFC PATCH V4 13/13] perf hist: Add fast path for duplicate entries check approach kan.liang
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=91cf3b08-c0ec-9bcd-669e-c5c91bda71ce@linux.intel.com \
--to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=pavel.gerasimov@intel.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com \
/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