From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68239C433B4 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 14:38:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3280561153 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 14:38:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230378AbhDYOj0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Apr 2021 10:39:26 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:42622 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230239AbhDYOjZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Apr 2021 10:39:25 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99DC461153; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 14:38:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1619361525; bh=GMPOZDqHnLjKWBasZvrjvGDu00VMeOq3W3hlYB1Odcs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Dc+TWyJFIsjOImgKaw2/Kv4fm2wVeE86oyH7W/N0IxjsY7HB9QRBd7rYNxm7yIhcM Zb/wPZRfIUJNhV8+/gpCYc+UEtFpeFRP0h/oniE7C4/MjH0OTs28sJLrcMlRIfa7VZ C5YBN/ktG2DBYc+ZxAeuYySPB67aiqXfHgI5ijax9QvpV75yfPLkRLs8QYJD49gmBa lh7CPLbE/dazgpLW6aDncnGx8ZMjmdhH8zwCE+SuKY1/rLMMsw3/VulMFj31JCo3zy K9ByXmO07R+ui/j/XKlTyEEXharXQs+mcbYjgt2jZPv1TN6vXyUnNQTpaWq7ulACyE NTwGNZmsk/ttA== Received: by quaco.ghostprotocols.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3257240647; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:38:43 -0300 (-03) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:38:43 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Song Liu , Song Liu , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kernel Team , "acme@redhat.com" , "namhyung@kernel.org" , "jolsa@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] perf-stat: introduce config stat.bpf-counter-events Message-ID: References: <20210419203649.164121-1-song@kernel.org> <20210419203649.164121-4-song@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:18:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:21:32PM +0000, Song Liu wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 2021, at 10:31 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:36:48PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > > > > > SNIP > > > > > >> if (stat_config.initial_delay < 0) { > > >> @@ -784,11 +790,11 @@ static int __run_perf_stat(int argc, const char **argv, int run_idx) > > >> if (affinity__setup(&affinity) < 0) > > >> return -1; > > >> > > >> - if (target__has_bpf(&target)) { > > >> - evlist__for_each_entry(evsel_list, counter) { > > >> - if (bpf_counter__load(counter, &target)) > > >> - return -1; > > >> - } > > >> + evlist__for_each_entry(evsel_list, counter) { > > >> + if (bpf_counter__load(counter, &target)) > > >> + return -1; > > >> + if (!evsel__is_bpf(counter)) > > >> + all_counters_use_bpf = false; > > > > > > could be done in bpf_counter__load, check below: > > > > > >> } > > >> > > >> evlist__for_each_cpu (evsel_list, i, cpu) { > > >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c > > >> index 5de991ab46af9..33b1888103dfa 100644 > > >> --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c > > >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c > > >> @@ -790,7 +790,8 @@ int bpf_counter__load(struct evsel *evsel, struct target *target) > > >> { > > >> if (target->bpf_str) > > >> evsel->bpf_counter_ops = &bpf_program_profiler_ops; > > >> - else if (target->use_bpf) > > >> + else if (target->use_bpf || > > >> + evsel__match_bpf_counter_events(evsel->name)) > > >> evsel->bpf_counter_ops = &bperf_ops; > > > > > > with: > > > else > > > all_counters_use_bpf = false; > > > > > > I was also thinking of oving it to evlist, but it's sat specific, > > > so I think it's good as static.. thanks for changing the implementation > > > > Hmm... then we need to somehow make all_counters_use_bpf visible in > > bpf_counter.c, which won't be very clean. Also, since this is stat > > specific, I guess it is better to keep it inside builtin-stat.c? > > The runtime overhead should be minimal. > > ah it's different file :) then it's better as it is, sorry Is this a Reviewed-by? - Arnaldo > jirka > > > > > Thanks, > > Song > > > -- - Arnaldo