Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf stat: Fix segfault when counting armv8_pmu events

From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Wei Li <liwei391@huawei.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Li Bin <huawei.libin@huawei.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf stat: Fix segfault when counting armv8_pmu events
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:59:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201002085936.GE3999500@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200924143623.GA357648@google.com>

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:36:23PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:19:00PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:15:06PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > I think the problem is that armv8_pmu has a cpumask,
> > > and the user requested per-task events.
> > > 
> > > The code tried to open the event with a dummy cpu map
> > > since it's not a cpu event, but the pmu has cpu map and
> > > it's passed to evsel.  So there's confusion somewhere
> > > whether it should use evsel->cpus or a dummy map.
> > 
> > you're right, I have following cpus file in pmu:
> > 
> >   # cat /sys/devices/armv8_pmuv3_0/cpus 
> >   0-3
> > 
> > covering all the cpus.. and once you have cpumask/cpus file,
> > you're system wide by default in current code, but we should
> > not crash ;-)
> > 
> > I tried to cover this case in patch below and I probably broke
> > some other use cases, but perhaps we could allow to open counters
> > per cpus for given workload
> > 
> > I'll try to look at this more tomorrow
> 
> I'm thinking about a different approach, we can ignore cpu map
> for the ARM cpu PMU and use the dummy, not tested ;-)
> 
> Thanks
> Namhyung
> 
> 
> diff --git a/tools/lib/perf/evlist.c b/tools/lib/perf/evlist.c
> index 2208444ecb44..cfcdbd7be066 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/perf/evlist.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/perf/evlist.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,9 @@ static void __perf_evlist__propagate_maps(struct perf_evlist *evlist,
>         if (!evsel->own_cpus || evlist->has_user_cpus) {
>                 perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus);
>                 evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(evlist->cpus);
> +       } else if (!evsel->system_wide && perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->cpus)) {
> +               perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus);
> +               evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(evlist->cpus);
>         } else if (evsel->cpus != evsel->own_cpus) {
>                 perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus);
>                 evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(evsel->own_cpus);
> 

Wei Li,
is this fixing your problem?

thanks,
jirka

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel