Re: [PATCH 2/5] libperf: Propagate maps only if necessary

From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
	Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] libperf: Propagate maps only if necessary
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:46:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7ciaOMOuJay5MzOYtg5paK_YmQskX1yqg=Oni1EzipPMwA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ae609590-7d85-ee4b-3525-8eaa46ed240c@intel.com>

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:54 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/09/22 20:28, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Adrian,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:06 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 24/09/22 19:57, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>> The current code propagate evsel's cpu map settings to evlist when it's
> >>> added to an evlist.  But the evlist->all_cpus and each evsel's cpus will
> >>> be updated in perf_evlist__set_maps() later.  No need to do it before
> >>> evlist's cpus are set actually.
> >>>
> >>> Actually we discarded this intermediate all_cpus maps at the beginning
> >>> of perf_evlist__set_maps().  Let's not do this.  It's only needed when
> >>> an evsel is added after the evlist cpu maps are set.
> >>
> >> That might not be true.  Consider evlist__fix_hybrid_cpus() which fiddles
> >> with evsel->core.cpus and evsel->core.own_cpus after the evsel has been
> >> added to the evlist.  It can also remove an evsel from the evlist.
> >
> > Thanks for your review.  I think it's fine to change evsel cpus or to remove
> > an evsel from evlist before calling evlist__create_maps().  The function
> > will take care of setting evlist's all_cpus from the evsels in the evlist.
> > So previous changes in evsel/cpus wouldn't be any special.
> >
> > After this point, adding a new evsel needs to update evlist all cpus by
> > propagating cpu maps.  So I think hybrid cpus should be fine.
> > Did I miss something?
>
> I wondered how it might play out if evlist__fix_hybrid_cpus() reduced the
> cpus from the target->cpu_list (using perf record -C) , since after this
> patch all_cpus always starts with the target->cpu_list instead of an empty
> list.  But then, in the hybrid case, it puts a dummy event that uses the
> target cpu list anyway, so the result is the same.
>
> I don't know if there are any cases where all_cpus would actually need to
> exclude some of the cpus from target->cpu_list.

I'm not aware of other cases to reduce cpu list.  I think it'd be fine
if it has a cpu in the evlist->all_cpus even if it's not used.  The evsel
should have a correct list anyway and we mostly use the evsel cpus
to do the real work.

Thanks,
Namhyung