From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A912C4338F for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 00:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7077D60EBA for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 00:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232885AbhGWAIl (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2021 20:08:41 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:50093 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232730AbhGWAIk (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2021 20:08:40 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10053"; a="198982410" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,262,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="198982410" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jul 2021 17:49:06 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,262,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="470881832" Received: from yjin15-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.238.4.147]) ([10.238.4.147]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jul 2021 17:49:03 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] perf tools: Enable on a list of CPUs for hybrid To: Jiri Olsa Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com References: <20210712071235.28533-1-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <20210712071235.28533-4-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <598463ae-0bb0-7609-407b-4822112b2093@linux.intel.com> From: "Jin, Yao" Message-ID: <57a972ea-bbe3-2baa-ab8d-9fbfe2eb4d32@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:49:01 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jiri, On 7/22/2021 6:19 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:30:11PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: >> Hi Jiri, >> >> On 7/20/2021 5:16 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:07:02PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: >>> >>> SNIP >>> >>>> >>>> OK, evlist__fix_cpus() is better, use this name in v4. >>>> >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + struct perf_cpu_map *cpus; >>>>>> + struct evsel *evsel, *tmp; >>>>>> + struct perf_pmu *pmu; >>>>>> + int ret, unmatched_count = 0, events_nr = 0; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (!perf_pmu__has_hybrid() || !cpu_list) >>>>>> + return 0; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + cpus = perf_cpu_map__new(cpu_list); >>>>>> + if (!cpus) >>>>>> + return -1; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + evlist__for_each_entry_safe(evlist, tmp, evsel) { >>>>>> + struct perf_cpu_map *matched_cpus, *unmatched_cpus; >>>>>> + char buf1[128], buf2[128]; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + pmu = perf_pmu__find_hybrid_pmu(evsel->pmu_name); >>>>>> + if (!pmu) >>>>>> + continue; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ret = perf_pmu__cpus_match(pmu, cpus, &matched_cpus, >>>>>> + &unmatched_cpus); >>>>>> + if (ret) >>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + events_nr++; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (matched_cpus->nr > 0 && (unmatched_cpus->nr > 0 || >>>>>> + matched_cpus->nr < cpus->nr || >>>>>> + matched_cpus->nr < pmu->cpus->nr)) { >>>>>> + perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->core.cpus); >>>>>> + perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->core.own_cpus); >>>>>> + evsel->core.cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(matched_cpus); >>>>>> + evsel->core.own_cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(matched_cpus); >>>>> >>>>> I'm bit confused in here.. AFAIUI there's 2 evsel objects create >>>>> for hybrid 'cycles' ... should they have already proper cpus set? >>>>> >>>> >>>> For 'cycles', yes two evsels are created automatically. One is for atom CPU >>>> (e.g. 8-11), the other is for core CPU (e.g. 0-7). In this example, these 2 >>>> evsels have already the cpus set. >>> >>> hum, so those evsels are created with pmu's cpus, right? >>> >> >> Yes, that's right. But we also check and adjust the evsel->cpus by using >> user's cpu list on hybrid (what the evlist__use_cpu_list() does). >> >>>> >>>> While the 'cpus' here is just the user specified cpu list. >>>> cpus = perf_cpu_map__new(cpu_list); >>> >>> then I think they will be changed by evlist__create_maps >>> with whatever user wants? >>> >> >> No, it will not be changed by evlist__create_maps. >> >> In evlist__create_maps(), >> evlist->core.has_user_cpus = !!target->cpu_list && !target->hybrid; >> >> It disables has_user_cpus for hybrid. >> >> So in __perf_evlist__propagate_maps, they will not be changed by evlist->cpus. >> >> if (!evsel->own_cpus || evlist->has_user_cpus) { >> perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus); >> evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(evlist->cpus); >> >>> could we just change __perf_evlist__propagate_maps to follow >>> pmu's cpus? >>> >> >> In __perf_evlist__propagate_maps, it has already followed pmu's cpus because >> the evlist->has_user_cpus is false for hybrid. > > sorry for delay > Never mind. :) > ok, so we first fix the cpus on hybrid events and then > propagate maps.. I guess it's ok, because it's in libperf > and that has no notion of hybrid so far > Yes. If we want the libperf to be hybrid aware, the interface has to be modified but actually we need to avoid modifying the libperf interface. So I finally decide to adjust the evsel->cpus first and then propatate maps. > could you please rename that function so it's also obvious > it's for hybrid only > > evlist__fix_hybrid_cpus ? not sure ;-) > Sure, I will rename the funciton in v4. > and add some comment with example to explain what the > function is doing > Got it! Thanks Jin Yao > thanks, > jirka >