| Message ID | 20230628102949.2598096-3-john.g.garry@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | perf tool: sys event metric support re-write | expand |
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:30 AM John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> wrote: > > In metricgroup__add_metric() we still iter the sys metrics if we already > found a match from the CPU table, which is pretty pointless, so don't > bother. > > Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> > --- > tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > index 4389ccd29fe7..8d2ac2513530 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > @@ -1261,6 +1261,12 @@ static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *pmu, const char *metric_name, con > > has_match = data.has_match; > } > + > + if (has_match) { > + ret = 0; > + goto out; > + } > + I think this can just be: if (!has_match) However, I'm not sure I agree with the intent of the change. We may have a metric like IPC and want it to apply to all types of CPU, GPU, etc. If we short-cut here then that won't be possible. Thanks, Ian > { > struct metricgroup_iter_data data = { > .fn = metricgroup__add_metric_sys_event_iter, > @@ -1279,6 +1285,7 @@ static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *pmu, const char *metric_name, con > > pmu_for_each_sys_metric(metricgroup__sys_event_iter, &data); > } > + > /* End of pmu events. */ > if (!has_match) > ret = -EINVAL; > -- > 2.35.3 >
On 30/06/2023 18:41, Ian Rogers wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:30 AM John Garry<john.g.garry@oracle.com> wrote: >> In metricgroup__add_metric() we still iter the sys metrics if we already >> found a match from the CPU table, which is pretty pointless, so don't >> bother. >> >> Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@oracle.com> >> --- >> tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c | 7 +++++++ >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c >> index 4389ccd29fe7..8d2ac2513530 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c >> @@ -1261,6 +1261,12 @@ static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *pmu, const char *metric_name, con >> >> has_match = data.has_match; >> } Hi Ian, >> + >> + if (has_match) { >> + ret = 0; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + > I think this can just be: > > if (!has_match) But ret has no initial value > > However, I'm not sure I agree with the intent of the change. We may > have a metric like IPC and want it to apply to all types of CPU, GPU, > etc. If we short-cut here then that won't be possible. A few points to make on this: - Currently we don't have any same-named metrics like this, so not much use in supporting it in the code (yet). - Even if we had some same-named metrics, I am not sure if it even works properly. Do we have any uncore PMU metrics which have same name as CPU metrics? - Further to the previous point, do we really want same-named metrics for different PMUs in the future? I think event / metric names need to be chosen carefully to avoid clash for other PMUs or keywords. For your example, if I did ask for IPC metric, I'd like to be able to just know I'm getting IPC metric for CPUs or some other PMUs, but not both. Thanks, John >
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:09 AM John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> wrote: > > On 30/06/2023 18:41, Ian Rogers wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:30 AM John Garry<john.g.garry@oracle.com> wrote: > >> In metricgroup__add_metric() we still iter the sys metrics if we already > >> found a match from the CPU table, which is pretty pointless, so don't > >> bother. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@oracle.com> > >> --- > >> tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c | 7 +++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > >> index 4389ccd29fe7..8d2ac2513530 100644 > >> --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c > >> @@ -1261,6 +1261,12 @@ static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *pmu, const char *metric_name, con > >> > >> has_match = data.has_match; > >> } > > Hi Ian, > > >> + > >> + if (has_match) { > >> + ret = 0; > >> + goto out; > >> + } > >> + > > I think this can just be: > > > > if (!has_match) > > But ret has no initial value > > > > > However, I'm not sure I agree with the intent of the change. We may > > have a metric like IPC and want it to apply to all types of CPU, GPU, > > etc. If we short-cut here then that won't be possible. > > A few points to make on this: > - Currently we don't have any same-named metrics like this, so not much > use in supporting it in the code (yet). We have same named metrics for heterogeneous CPU PMUs: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/alderlake/adl-metrics.json?h=perf-tools-next#n304 cpu_atom https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/alderlake/adl-metrics.json?h=perf-tools-next#n1125 cpu_core > - Even if we had some same-named metrics, I am not sure if it even works > properly. Do we have any uncore PMU metrics which have same name as CPU > metrics? So I was thinking IPC was a generic concept that would apply to a co-processor on a network card, a GPU, etc. > - Further to the previous point, do we really want same-named metrics > for different PMUs in the future? I think event / metric names need to > be chosen carefully to avoid clash for other PMUs or keywords. For your > example, if I did ask for IPC metric, I'd like to be able to just know > I'm getting IPC metric for CPUs or some other PMUs, but not both. At the moment if you request an event without a PMU, say instructions retired, we will attempt to open the event on every PMU - legacy events (PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE, PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE) only try the core PMUs. It would seem consistent if metrics tried to open on every PMU like most events. Thanks, Ian > Thanks, > John > > >
On 12/07/2023 06:40, Ian Rogers wrote: >> A few points to make on this: >> - Currently we don't have any same-named metrics like this, so not much >> use in supporting it in the code (yet). > We have same named metrics for heterogeneous CPU PMUs: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/alderlake/adl-metrics.json?h=perf-tools-next*n304__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MyvM7oyC6FgOVgDn2-Ot_TJNh4TF_VM9SlIVwv2AOTkJGdmDJ2NYf5WXh-yLcG1dRxLKdXWZVTzsoOo5yDk$ > cpu_atom > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/alderlake/adl-metrics.json?h=perf-tools-next*n1125__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MyvM7oyC6FgOVgDn2-Ot_TJNh4TF_VM9SlIVwv2AOTkJGdmDJ2NYf5WXh-yLcG1dRxLKdXWZVTzsL1dVM3Q$ > cpu_core > I meant that we have no same-named events for sys PMUs compared to uncore/CPU PMUs. >> - Even if we had some same-named metrics, I am not sure if it even works >> properly. Do we have any uncore PMU metrics which have same name as CPU >> metrics? > So I was thinking IPC was a generic concept that would apply to a > co-processor on a network card, a GPU, etc. > >> - Further to the previous point, do we really want same-named metrics >> for different PMUs in the future? I think event / metric names need to >> be chosen carefully to avoid clash for other PMUs or keywords. For your >> example, if I did ask for IPC metric, I'd like to be able to just know >> I'm getting IPC metric for CPUs or some other PMUs, but not both. > At the moment if you request an event without a PMU, say instructions > retired, we will attempt to open the event on every PMU - legacy > events (PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE, PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE) only try the core > PMUs. It would seem consistent if metrics tried to open on every PMU > like most events. OK, fine. I can drop this change if you prefer. But, to reiterate my main point, I still think that there is not much point in looking for metrics which currently would not exist. Thanks, John
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c index 4389ccd29fe7..8d2ac2513530 100644 --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c @@ -1261,6 +1261,12 @@ static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *pmu, const char *metric_name, con has_match = data.has_match; } + + if (has_match) { + ret = 0; + goto out; + } + { struct metricgroup_iter_data data = { .fn = metricgroup__add_metric_sys_event_iter, @@ -1279,6 +1285,7 @@ static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *pmu, const char *metric_name, con pmu_for_each_sys_metric(metricgroup__sys_event_iter, &data); } + /* End of pmu events. */ if (!has_match) ret = -EINVAL;
In metricgroup__add_metric() we still iter the sys metrics if we already found a match from the CPU table, which is pretty pointless, so don't bother. Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> --- tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)