Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] perf report: Add --latency flag

[Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:23:30PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 18:42, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:42:16AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 02:02, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 08:23:58AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 04:44, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > > > > > > @@ -3547,10 +3549,15 @@ static int __hpp_dimension__add_output(struct perf_hpp_list *list,
> > > > > > >       return 0;
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -int hpp_dimension__add_output(unsigned col)
> > > > > > > +int hpp_dimension__add_output(unsigned col, bool implicit)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > +     struct hpp_dimension *hd;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >       BUG_ON(col >= PERF_HPP__MAX_INDEX);
> > > > > > > -     return __hpp_dimension__add_output(&perf_hpp_list, &hpp_sort_dimensions[col]);
> > > > > > > +     hd = &hpp_sort_dimensions[col];
> > > > > > > +     if (implicit && !hd->was_taken)
> > > > > > > +             return 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think you need these implicit and was_taken things.
> > > > > > Just removing from the sort list when it's unregistered seems to work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---8<---
> > > > > > @@ -685,6 +685,7 @@ void perf_hpp_list__prepend_sort_field(struct perf_hpp_list *list,
> > > > > >  static void perf_hpp__column_unregister(struct perf_hpp_fmt *format)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >         list_del_init(&format->list);
> > > > > > +       list_del_init(&format->sort_list);
> > > > > >         fmt_free(format);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---8<---
> > > > >
> > > > > It merely suppresses the warning, but does not work the same way. See
> > > > > this for details:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CACT4Y+ZREdDL7a+DMKGFGae1ZjX1C8uNRwCGF0c8iUJtTTq0Lw@mail.gmail.com/
> > > >
> > > > But I think it's better to pass --latency option rather than adding it
> > > > to -s option.  If you really want to have specific output fields, then
> > > > please use -F latency,sym instead.
> > > >
> > > > Also I've realized that it should add one sort key in setup_overhead()
> > > > to support hierarchy mode properly.  Something like this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Namhyung
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---8<---
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/sort.c b/tools/perf/util/sort.c
> > > > index 2b6023de7a53ae2e..329c2e9bbc69a725 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/sort.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/sort.c
> > > > @@ -3817,22 +3817,15 @@ static char *setup_overhead(char *keys)
> > > >                 return keys;
> > > >
> > > >         if (symbol_conf.prefer_latency) {
> > > > -               keys = prefix_if_not_in("overhead", keys);
> > > > -               keys = prefix_if_not_in("latency", keys);
> > > > -               if (symbol_conf.cumulate_callchain) {
> > > > -                       keys = prefix_if_not_in("overhead_children", keys);
> > > > +               if (symbol_conf.cumulate_callchain)
> > > >                         keys = prefix_if_not_in("latency_children", keys);
> > > > -               }
> > > > -       } else if (!keys || (!strstr(keys, "overhead") &&
> > > > -                       !strstr(keys, "latency"))) {
> > > > -               if (symbol_conf.enable_latency)
> > > > +               else
> > > >                         keys = prefix_if_not_in("latency", keys);
> > > > -               keys = prefix_if_not_in("overhead", keys);
> > > > -               if (symbol_conf.cumulate_callchain) {
> > > > -                       if (symbol_conf.enable_latency)
> > > > -                               keys = prefix_if_not_in("latency_children", keys);
> > > > +       } else {
> > > > +               if (symbol_conf.cumulate_callchain)
> > > >                         keys = prefix_if_not_in("overhead_children", keys);
> > > > -               }
> > > > +               else
> > > > +                       keys = prefix_if_not_in("overhead", keys);
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > >         return keys;
> > >
> > >
> > > Have I decoded the patch correctly?
> > >
> > >         if (symbol_conf.prefer_latency) {
> > >                 if (symbol_conf.cumulate_callchain)
> > >                         keys = prefix_if_not_in("latency_children", keys);
> > >                 else
> > >                         keys = prefix_if_not_in("latency", keys);
> > >         } else {
> > >                 if (symbol_conf.cumulate_callchain)
> > >                         keys = prefix_if_not_in("overhead_children", keys);
> > >                 else
> > >                         keys = prefix_if_not_in("overhead", keys);
> > >         }
> > >
> >
> > Yep, that's correct.
> >
> >
> > > If I decoded the patch correctly, it's not what we want.
> > >
> > > For the default prefer_latency case we also want to add overhead, that
> > > was intentional for the --latency preset. It does not harm, and allows
> > > to see/compare differences in latency and overhead.
> > > Again, if a user wants something custom, there is no way to second
> > > guess all possible intentions. For non-default cases, we just let the
> > > user say what exactly they want, and we will follow that.
> > >
> > > "latency" should be added even if cumulate_callchain.
> >
> > Please note that it just sets the sort key - which column you want to
> > order the result.  The output fields for overhead and children will be
> > added in perf_hpp__init() if you remove the 'was_taken' logic.  So I
> > think this change will have the same output with that.
> 
> Yes, but perf_hpp__init() does not have the logic that's currently
> contained in setup_overhead().
> 
> If the user specified a "latency" field, and we don't want to add
> "overhead" in that case, then _both_ setup_overhead() and
> perf_hpp__init() must not add "overhead".

Ok, I see your point.  But I think it'd be much easier if you allow the
'overhead' column in that case too.

> 
> If we do what you proposed, then perf_hpp__init() will still add
> "overhead" and we go back to square 0.

Right, but currently the default perf report and with --latency option,
will show both overhead and latency columns.  That's why I thought you
wanted to display them together.

Actually I don't want to use -s option to describe output fields (like
overhead and latency) but I cannot prevent people from doing that. :(
Maybe you can skip the setup_overhead() if user gives either 'overhead'
or 'latency' explicitly - oh, you have that in the !prefer_latency case.

> 
> I used was_taken to not duplicate this non-trivial logic in both
> functions. As I mentioned in the previous replies, I tried that but it
> was messier/more complex. was_taken is a simple way to not duplicate
> logic and keep these functions consistent.

Hmm.. ok.  Maybe we can update this part later.  Can you please add a
comment in the perf_hpp__init() that says overhead and latency columns
are added to the sort list in setup_overhead() so it's added implicitly
here only if it's already taken?

> 
> 
> > > For the !prefer_latency case, we don't want to mess with
> > > overhead/latency fields if the user specified any of them explicitly.
> > > Otherwise this convenience part gets in the user's way and does not
> > > allow them to do what they want. User says "I want X" and perf says
> > > "screw you, I will give you Y instead, and won't allow you to possibly
> > > do X".
> >
> > That's what -F option does.  The -s option used to specify how to group
> > the histogram entries and it will add 'overhead' (and/or 'latency') if
> > it's not even requested.  So I think it's ok to add more output column
> > when -s option is used.
> >
> > But unfortunately, using -F and -s together is confusing and change the
> > meaning of -s option - it now says how it sort the result.
> >
> > >
> > > And see above: -F does not work with --hierarchy, so this part is unskippable.
> >
> > Yep, but I mean it fixes --hierarchy and --latency.  I'm thinking of a
> > way to support -F and --hierarchy in general.
> 
> I don't know why it was disabled. There are likely other things to
> improve, but please let's not tie that to this change.

Right, it's a separate issue.  I was afraid of mixing output fields and
sort keys in an unexpected order.  But maybe we can support that if
that's what user wants.

Thanks,
Namhyung