From: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, coresight@lists.linaro.org,
suzuki.poulose@arm.com, Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf cs-etm: Remove duplicate and incorrect aux size checks
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:16:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a7fd600-91f3-5feb-d21f-ec7cb704f84c@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211209134413.GA622826@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
On 09/12/2021 13:44, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:08:04PM +0000, James Clark wrote:
>> On 08/12/2021 13:17, Leo Yan wrote:
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 11:54:35AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
>>>> There are two checks, one is for size when running without admin, but
>>>> this one is covered by the driver and reported on in more detail here
>>>> (builtin-record.c):
>>>>
>>>> pr_err("Permission error mapping pages.\n"
>>>> "Consider increasing "
>>>> "/proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb,\n"
>>>> "or try again with a smaller value of -m/--mmap_pages.\n"
>>>> "(current value: %u,%u)\n",
>>>
>>> I looked into the kernel code and found:
>>>
>>> sysctl_perf_event_mlock = 512 + (PAGE_SIZE / 1024); // 512KB + 1 page
>>>
>>> If the system have multiple cores, let's say 8 cores, then kernel even
>>> can relax the limitaion with:
>>>
>>> user_lock_limit *= num_online_cpus();
>>>
>>> So means the memory lock limitation is:
>>>
>>> (512KB + 1 page) * 8 = 4MB + 8 pages.
>>>
>>> Seems to me, it's much relax than the user space's limitaion 128KB.
>>> And let's imagine for Arm server, the permitted buffer size can be a
>>> huge value (e.g. for a system with 128 cores).
>>>
>>> Could you confirm if this is right?
>>
>> Yes that seems to be the case. And the commit message for that addition
>> states the reasoning:
>>
>> perf_counter: Increase mmap limit
>>
>> In a default 'perf top' run the tool will create a counter for
>> each online CPU. With enough CPUs this will eventually exhaust
>> the default limit.
>>
>> So scale it up with the number of online CPUs.
>>
>> To me that makes sense. Normally the memory installed also scales with the
>> number of cores.
>>
>> Are you saying that we should look into modifying that scaling factor in
>> perf_mmap()? Or that we should still add something to userspace for
>> coresight to limit user supplied buffer sizes?
>
> I don't think we should modify the scaling factor in perf_mmap(), the
> logic is not only used by AUX buffer, it's shared by normal event
> ring buffer.
>
>> I think it makes sense to allow the user to specify any value that will work,
>> it's up to them.
>
> Understand, I verified this patch with below steps:
>
> root@debian:~# echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid
>
> leoy@debian:~$ perf record -e cs_etm// -m 4M,8M -o perf_test.data -- sleep 1
> Permission error mapping pages.
> Consider increasing /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb,
> or try again with a smaller value of -m/--mmap_pages.
> (current value: 1024,2048)
>
> leoy@debian:~$ perf record -e cs_etm// -m 4M,4M -o perf_test.data -- sleep 1
> Couldn't synthesize bpf events.
> [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.607 MB perf_test.data ]
>
> So this patch looks good for me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
>
Thanks Leo!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-09 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-08 11:54 [PATCH] perf cs-etm: Remove duplicate and incorrect aux size checks James Clark
2021-12-08 13:17 ` Leo Yan
2021-12-08 14:08 ` James Clark
2021-12-09 13:44 ` Leo Yan
2021-12-09 14:16 ` James Clark [this message]
2021-12-10 16:54 ` Mathieu Poirier
2021-12-10 17:55 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2021-12-10 19:03 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
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=6a7fd600-91f3-5feb-d21f-ec7cb704f84c@arm.com \
--to=james.clark@arm.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=coresight@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=leo.yan@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=mike.leach@linaro.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).