Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] perf header: Support hybrid CPU_PMU_CAPS

["Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Jiri,

On 5/10/2021 9:11 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 10:43:39PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
>>>> 'nr of rest pmus', we know that all pmus have been processed.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, we have to continue reading data file till we find something
>>>> incorrect and then finally drop the last read data.
>>>
>>> you have the size of the feature data right? I think we use
>>> it in other cases to check if there are more data
>>>
>>
>> The challenge for us is if we need to compatible with the old perf.data
>> which was generated by old perf tool.
>>
>> For the old perf.data, the layout in header is:
>>
>> nr of caps
>> caps string 1
>> caps string 2
>> ...
>> caps string N
>>
>> It doesn't carry with any other fields such as size of caps data.
>>
>> To be compatible with old perf.data, so I have to extend the layout to:
>>
>> nr of caps for pmu 1
>> caps string 1
>> caps string 2
>> ...
>> caps string N
>> name of pmu 1
>> nr of rest pmus
>>
>> nr of caps for pmu2
>> caps string 1
>> caps string 2
>> ...
>> caps string N
>> name of pmu 2
>> nr of rest pmus
>>
>> When the new perf tool detects the string such as "cpu_", it can know that
>> it's the pmu name field in new perf.data, otherwise it's the old perf.data.
> 
> what if the cap string starts with 'cpu_' ?
> 

I just assume the cap string would not have 'cpu_' string. Yes, I agree, that's not a very good 
solution.

> I think it might be better to create new feature that
> stores caps for multiple pmus in generic way
>

Yes, creating a new feature in header (such as "HYBRID_CPU_PMU_CAPS") is a better way.

>>
>> If we add new field such as "size" to the layout, I'm afraid the new perf
>> tool can not process the old perf.data correctly.
>>
>> If we don't need to support old perf.data, that makes things easy.
> 
> we need to
> 

Yes, we need to. I'm now preparing v3.

Thanks
Jin Yao

> jirka
>