From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 12/22] perf/x86/intel: Update dyn_constranit base on PEBS event precise level
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:45:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e0b25b3e-aec0-4c43-9ab2-907186b56c71@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250416153226.GC17910@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 2025-04-16 11:32 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 12:31:03PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>>> This can land us in EVENT_CONSTRAINT_OVERLAP territory, no?
>
>> The dyn_constraint is a supplement of the static constraints. It doesn't
>> overwrite the static constraints.
>
> That doesn't matter.
>
>> In the intel_get_event_constraints(), perf always gets the static
>> constraints first. If the dyn_constraint is defined, it gets the common
>> mask of the static constraints and the dynamic constraints. All
>> constraint rules will be complied.
>>
>> if (event->hw.dyn_constraint != ~0ULL) {
>> c2 = dyn_constraint(cpuc, c2, idx);
>> c2->idxmsk64 &= event->hw.dyn_constraint;
>> c2->weight = hweight64(c2->idxmsk64);
>> }
>
> Read the comment that goes with EVENT_CONSTRAINT_OVERLAP().
>
> Suppose we have (from intel_lnc_event_constraints[]):
>
> INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x012a, 0xf)
> INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x2e, 0x3ff)
>
> Then since the first is fully contained in the latter, there is no
> problem.
>
> Now imagine PEBS gets a dynamic constraint of 0x3c (just because), and
> then you try and create a PEBS event along with the above two events,
> and all of a sudden you have:
>
> 0x000f
> 0x003c
> 0x03ff
>
> And that is exactly the problem case.
>
> Also, looking at that LNC table, please explain:
>
> INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x01cd, 0x3fc)
>
> that looks like the exact thing I've asked to never do, exactly because
> of the above problem :-(
I see. I think we can check the constraint table and update the overlap
bit accordingly. Similar to what we did in the
intel_pmu_check_event_constraints() for the fixed counters.
I'm thinking something as below (Just a POC, not tested.)
For the static table, set the overlap for the events that may trigger
the issue at init time.
For the dynamic constraint, add a dyn_overlap_mask to track if overlap
is required for the feature (The below only supports the branch
counters. The ACR and ARCH PEBS can be added later.) If it's required,
set a flag PERF_X86_EVENT_OVERLAP for the event when the dyn_constraint
is applied. The overlap bit will be set at runtime.
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 16f8aea33243..76a03a0c28e9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -3825,6 +3825,8 @@ intel_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events
*cpuc, int idx,
c2 = dyn_constraint(cpuc, c2, idx);
c2->idxmsk64 &= event->hw.dyn_constraint;
c2->weight = hweight64(c2->idxmsk64);+ if (event->hw.flags &
PERF_X86_EVENT_OVERLAP)
+ c2->overlap = 1;
}
return c2;
@@ -4197,6 +4199,12 @@ static inline void
intel_pmu_set_acr_caused_constr(struct perf_event *event,
event->hw.dyn_constraint &= hybrid(event->pmu, acr_cause_mask64);
}
+enum dyn_overlap_bits {
+ DYN_OVERLAP_BRANCH_CNTR
+};
+
+static unsigned long dyn_overlap_mask;
+
static int intel_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event *event)
{
int ret = x86_pmu_hw_config(event);
@@ -4261,6 +4269,8 @@ static int intel_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event
*event)
if (branch_sample_counters(leader)) {
num++;
leader->hw.dyn_constraint &= x86_pmu.lbr_counters;
+ if (test_bit(DYN_OVERLAP_BRANCH_CNTR, &dyn_overlap_mask);
+ leader->hw.flags |= PERF_X86_EVENT_OVERLAP;
}
leader->hw.flags |= PERF_X86_EVENT_BRANCH_COUNTERS;
@@ -4270,6 +4280,8 @@ static int intel_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event
*event)
if (branch_sample_counters(sibling)) {
num++;
sibling->hw.dyn_constraint &= x86_pmu.lbr_counters;
+ if (test_bit(DYN_OVERLAP_BRANCH_CNTR, &dyn_overlap_mask);
+ sibling->hw.flags |= PERF_X86_EVENT_OVERLAP;
}
}
@@ -6638,6 +6650,29 @@ static void
intel_pmu_check_event_constraints(struct event_constraint *event_con
if (!event_constraints)
return;
+ for_each_event_constraint(c, event_constraints) {
+ if (c->weight == 1 || c->overlap)
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * The counter mask of an event is not a subset of
+ * the counter mask of a constraint with an equal
+ * or higher weight. The overlap flag must be set.
+ */
+ for_each_event_constraint(c2, event_constraints) {
+ if ((c2->weight >= c->weight) &&
+ (c2->idxmsk64 | c->idxmsk64) != c2->idxmsk64) {
+ c->overlap = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Check for the dynamic constraint */
+ if (c->weight >= HWEIGHT(x86_pmu.lbr_counters) &&
+ (c->idxmsk64 | x86_pmu.lbr_counters) != c->idxmsk64)
+ __set_bit(DYN_OVERLAP_BRANCH_CNTR, &dyn_overlap_mask);
+ }
+
/*
* event on fixed counter2 (REF_CYCLES) only works on this
* counter, so do not extend mask to generic counters
Thanks,
Kan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-16 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-15 11:44 [Patch v3 00/22] Arch-PEBS and PMU supports for Clearwater Forest and Panther Lake Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 01/22] perf/x86/intel: Add Panther Lake support Dapeng Mi
2025-04-17 13:01 ` [tip: perf/core] " tip-bot2 for Kan Liang
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 02/22] perf/x86/intel: Add PMU support for Clearwater Forest Dapeng Mi
2025-04-17 13:01 ` [tip: perf/core] " tip-bot2 for Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 03/22] perf/x86/intel: Parse CPUID archPerfmonExt leaves for non-hybrid CPUs Dapeng Mi
2025-04-17 13:01 ` [tip: perf/core] " tip-bot2 for Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 04/22] perf/x86/intel: Decouple BTS initialization from PEBS initialization Dapeng Mi
2025-04-17 13:01 ` [tip: perf/core] " tip-bot2 for Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 05/22] perf/x86/intel: Rename x86_pmu.pebs to x86_pmu.ds_pebs Dapeng Mi
2025-04-17 13:01 ` [tip: perf/core] " tip-bot2 for Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 06/22] perf/x86/intel: Introduce pairs of PEBS static calls Dapeng Mi
2025-04-17 13:00 ` [tip: perf/core] " tip-bot2 for Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 07/22] perf/x86/intel: Initialize architectural PEBS Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 08/22] perf/x86/intel/ds: Factor out PEBS record processing code to functions Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 09/22] perf/x86/intel/ds: Factor out PEBS group " Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 10/22] perf/x86/intel: Process arch-PEBS records or record fragments Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 13:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-15 16:09 ` Liang, Kan
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 11/22] perf/x86/intel: Allocate arch-PEBS buffer and initialize PEBS_BASE MSR Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 13:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-16 0:59 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-04-15 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-16 1:03 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 12/22] perf/x86/intel: Update dyn_constranit base on PEBS event precise level Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-15 16:31 ` Liang, Kan
2025-04-16 1:46 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-04-16 13:59 ` Liang, Kan
2025-04-17 1:15 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-04-16 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-16 19:45 ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2025-04-16 19:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-22 22:50 ` Liang, Kan
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 13/22] perf/x86/intel: Setup PEBS data configuration and enable legacy groups Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 14/22] perf/x86/intel: Add counter group support for arch-PEBS Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 15/22] perf/x86/intel: Support SSP register capturing " Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-16 5:49 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 16/22] perf/core: Support to capture higher width vector registers Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 14:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-16 6:42 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-04-16 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-17 2:00 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-04-22 3:05 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 17/22] perf/x86/intel: Support arch-PEBS vector registers group capturing Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 18/22] perf tools: Support to show SSP register Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 19/22] perf tools: Enhance arch__intr/user_reg_mask() helpers Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 20/22] perf tools: Enhance sample_regs_user/intr to capture more registers Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 21/22] perf tools: Support to capture more vector registers (x86/Intel) Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 11:44 ` [Patch v3 22/22] perf tools/tests: Add vector registers PEBS sampling test Dapeng Mi
2025-04-15 15:21 ` [Patch v3 00/22] Arch-PEBS and PMU supports for Clearwater Forest and Panther Lake Liang, Kan
2025-04-16 7:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=e0b25b3e-aec0-4c43-9ab2-907186b56c71@linux.intel.com \
--to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@intel.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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