diff mbox series

[5/7] perf pmu: Move pmu__find_core_pmu() to pmus.c

Message ID 20230831151632.124985-6-james.clark@arm.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series perf: strcmp_cpuid_str() expression fixups | expand

Commit Message

James Clark Aug. 31, 2023, 3:16 p.m. UTC
pmu__find_core_pmu() more logically belongs in pmus.c because it
iterates over all PMUs, so move it to pmus.c

At the same time rename it to perf_pmus__find_core_pmu() to match the
naming convention in this file.

Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/pmu.c |  6 +++---
 tools/perf/tests/expr.c          |  2 +-
 tools/perf/util/expr.c           |  2 +-
 tools/perf/util/pmu.c            | 17 -----------------
 tools/perf/util/pmu.h            |  2 +-
 tools/perf/util/pmus.c           | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 6 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

Comments

Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Sept. 12, 2023, 7:26 p.m. UTC | #1
Em Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 04:16:16PM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
> pmu__find_core_pmu() more logically belongs in pmus.c because it
> iterates over all PMUs, so move it to pmus.c
> 
> At the same time rename it to perf_pmus__find_core_pmu() to match the
> naming convention in this file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>

So, this one is hitting this:

  CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/expr.o
In file included from /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:7,
                 from util/pmus.c:2:
In function ‘perf_pmus__scan_core’,
    inlined from ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’ at util/pmus.c:601:16:
/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45: error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
   36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \
      |                                             ^~~~~~
/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:352:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘container_of’
  352 |         container_of(ptr, type, member)
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:404:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_entry’
  404 |         list_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member)
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~
/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:494:20: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_next_entry’
  494 |         for (pos = list_next_entry(pos, member);                        \
      |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
util/pmus.c:274:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_for_each_entry_continue’
  274 |         list_for_each_entry_continue(pmu, &core_pmus, list)
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
util/pmus.c: In function ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’:
util/pmus.c:35:18: note: at offset -128 into object ‘core_pmus’ of size 16
   35 | static LIST_HEAD(core_pmus);
      |                  ^~~~~~~~~
/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:23:26: note: in definition of macro ‘LIST_HEAD’
   23 |         struct list_head name = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name)
      |                          ^~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
make[4]: *** [/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/build/Makefile.build:97: /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/pmus.o] Error 1
make[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
  LD      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/ui/browsers/perf-in.o


So I applied up to 4/7

Please continue from what will be in tmp.perf-tools-next in some
jiffies.

- Arnaldo
James Clark Sept. 13, 2023, 10:20 a.m. UTC | #2
On 12/09/2023 20:26, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 04:16:16PM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
>> pmu__find_core_pmu() more logically belongs in pmus.c because it
>> iterates over all PMUs, so move it to pmus.c
>>
>> At the same time rename it to perf_pmus__find_core_pmu() to match the
>> naming convention in this file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
> 
> So, this one is hitting this:
> 
>   CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/expr.o
> In file included from /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:7,
>                  from util/pmus.c:2:
> In function ‘perf_pmus__scan_core’,
>     inlined from ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’ at util/pmus.c:601:16:
> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45: error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
>    36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \
>       |                                             ^~~~~~
> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:352:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘container_of’
>   352 |         container_of(ptr, type, member)
>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:404:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_entry’
>   404 |         list_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member)
>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~
> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:494:20: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_next_entry’
>   494 |         for (pos = list_next_entry(pos, member);                        \
>       |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> util/pmus.c:274:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_for_each_entry_continue’
>   274 |         list_for_each_entry_continue(pmu, &core_pmus, list)
>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> util/pmus.c: In function ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’:
> util/pmus.c:35:18: note: at offset -128 into object ‘core_pmus’ of size 16
>    35 | static LIST_HEAD(core_pmus);
>       |                  ^~~~~~~~~
> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:23:26: note: in definition of macro ‘LIST_HEAD’
>    23 |         struct list_head name = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name)
>       |                          ^~~~
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> make[4]: *** [/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/build/Makefile.build:97: /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/pmus.o] Error 1
> make[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>   LD      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/ui/browsers/perf-in.o
> 
> 
> So I applied up to 4/7
> 
> Please continue from what will be in tmp.perf-tools-next in some
> jiffies.
> 
> - Arnaldo

I wasn't able to reproduce this on x86 or Arm, with either Clang or GCC.

That was with this patch applied onto 999b81b907e on tmp.perf-tools-next
and a pretty normal "make WERROR=1" command.

It seems like the 0 here is just to get the type rather than access
anything, if that's the 0 that the "array subscript 0" error is about,
so something seems a bit strange:

> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45:
error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct
list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
>    36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \
James Clark Sept. 13, 2023, 10:32 a.m. UTC | #3
On 13/09/2023 11:20, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/09/2023 20:26, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 04:16:16PM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
>>> pmu__find_core_pmu() more logically belongs in pmus.c because it
>>> iterates over all PMUs, so move it to pmus.c
>>>
>>> At the same time rename it to perf_pmus__find_core_pmu() to match the
>>> naming convention in this file.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
>>
>> So, this one is hitting this:
>>
>>   CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/expr.o
>> In file included from /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:7,
>>                  from util/pmus.c:2:
>> In function ‘perf_pmus__scan_core’,
>>     inlined from ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’ at util/pmus.c:601:16:
>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45: error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
>>    36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \
>>       |                                             ^~~~~~
>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:352:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘container_of’
>>   352 |         container_of(ptr, type, member)
>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:404:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_entry’
>>   404 |         list_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member)
>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~
>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:494:20: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_next_entry’
>>   494 |         for (pos = list_next_entry(pos, member);                        \
>>       |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> util/pmus.c:274:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_for_each_entry_continue’
>>   274 |         list_for_each_entry_continue(pmu, &core_pmus, list)
>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> util/pmus.c: In function ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’:
>> util/pmus.c:35:18: note: at offset -128 into object ‘core_pmus’ of size 16
>>    35 | static LIST_HEAD(core_pmus);
>>       |                  ^~~~~~~~~
>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:23:26: note: in definition of macro ‘LIST_HEAD’
>>    23 |         struct list_head name = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name)
>>       |                          ^~~~
>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>> make[4]: *** [/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/build/Makefile.build:97: /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/pmus.o] Error 1
>> make[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>   LD      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/ui/browsers/perf-in.o
>>
>>
>> So I applied up to 4/7
>>
>> Please continue from what will be in tmp.perf-tools-next in some
>> jiffies.
>>
>> - Arnaldo
> 
> I wasn't able to reproduce this on x86 or Arm, with either Clang or GCC.
> 
> That was with this patch applied onto 999b81b907e on tmp.perf-tools-next
> and a pretty normal "make WERROR=1" command.
> 
> It seems like the 0 here is just to get the type rather than access
> anything, if that's the 0 that the "array subscript 0" error is about,
> so something seems a bit strange:
> 
>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45:
> error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct
> list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
>>    36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \

Nevermind, I managed to reproduce it. With a DEBUG=1 build on x86 there
is no error, it only happens with a non debug one.

I will look into it.
James Clark Sept. 13, 2023, 3:37 p.m. UTC | #4
On 13/09/2023 11:32, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13/09/2023 11:20, James Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/09/2023 20:26, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 04:16:16PM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
>>>> pmu__find_core_pmu() more logically belongs in pmus.c because it
>>>> iterates over all PMUs, so move it to pmus.c
>>>>
>>>> At the same time rename it to perf_pmus__find_core_pmu() to match the
>>>> naming convention in this file.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
>>>
>>> So, this one is hitting this:
>>>
>>>   CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/expr.o
>>> In file included from /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:7,
>>>                  from util/pmus.c:2:
>>> In function ‘perf_pmus__scan_core’,
>>>     inlined from ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’ at util/pmus.c:601:16:
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45: error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
>>>    36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \
>>>       |                                             ^~~~~~
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:352:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘container_of’
>>>   352 |         container_of(ptr, type, member)
>>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:404:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_entry’
>>>   404 |         list_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member)
>>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:494:20: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_next_entry’
>>>   494 |         for (pos = list_next_entry(pos, member);                        \
>>>       |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> util/pmus.c:274:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_for_each_entry_continue’
>>>   274 |         list_for_each_entry_continue(pmu, &core_pmus, list)
>>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> util/pmus.c: In function ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’:
>>> util/pmus.c:35:18: note: at offset -128 into object ‘core_pmus’ of size 16
>>>    35 | static LIST_HEAD(core_pmus);
>>>       |                  ^~~~~~~~~
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:23:26: note: in definition of macro ‘LIST_HEAD’
>>>    23 |         struct list_head name = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name)
>>>       |                          ^~~~
>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>> make[4]: *** [/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/build/Makefile.build:97: /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/pmus.o] Error 1
>>> make[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>>   LD      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/ui/browsers/perf-in.o
>>>
>>>
>>> So I applied up to 4/7
>>>
>>> Please continue from what will be in tmp.perf-tools-next in some
>>> jiffies.
>>>
>>> - Arnaldo
>>
>> I wasn't able to reproduce this on x86 or Arm, with either Clang or GCC.
>>
>> That was with this patch applied onto 999b81b907e on tmp.perf-tools-next
>> and a pretty normal "make WERROR=1" command.
>>
>> It seems like the 0 here is just to get the type rather than access
>> anything, if that's the 0 that the "array subscript 0" error is about,
>> so something seems a bit strange:
>>
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45:
>> error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct
>> list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
>>>    36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \
> 
> Nevermind, I managed to reproduce it. With a DEBUG=1 build on x86 there
> is no error, it only happens with a non debug one.
> 
> I will look into it.

Sent a v3 with the fix. It's some kind of awkward semi-undefined
behavior in the linked list implementation that was always there but the
compiler could only see when I moved that function so it was all in one
compilation unit. It also required -O2 and I always build with DEBUG=1
so I missed it.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/pmu.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/pmu.c
index 615084eb88d8..3d9330feebd2 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/pmu.c
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/pmu.c
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ 
 
 const struct pmu_metrics_table *pmu_metrics_table__find(void)
 {
-	struct perf_pmu *pmu = pmu__find_core_pmu();
+	struct perf_pmu *pmu = perf_pmus__find_core_pmu();
 
 	if (pmu)
 		return perf_pmu__find_metrics_table(pmu);
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@  const struct pmu_metrics_table *pmu_metrics_table__find(void)
 
 const struct pmu_events_table *pmu_events_table__find(void)
 {
-	struct perf_pmu *pmu = pmu__find_core_pmu();
+	struct perf_pmu *pmu = perf_pmus__find_core_pmu();
 
 	if (pmu)
 		return perf_pmu__find_events_table(pmu);
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@  double perf_pmu__cpu_slots_per_cycle(void)
 {
 	char path[PATH_MAX];
 	unsigned long long slots = 0;
-	struct perf_pmu *pmu = pmu__find_core_pmu();
+	struct perf_pmu *pmu = perf_pmus__find_core_pmu();
 
 	if (pmu) {
 		perf_pmu__pathname_scnprintf(path, sizeof(path),
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/expr.c b/tools/perf/tests/expr.c
index 78544092ef0c..e3aa9d4fcf3a 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/expr.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/expr.c
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@  static int test__expr(struct test_suite *t __maybe_unused, int subtest __maybe_u
 	struct expr_parse_ctx *ctx;
 	bool is_intel = false;
 	char strcmp_cpuid_buf[256];
-	struct perf_pmu *pmu = pmu__find_core_pmu();
+	struct perf_pmu *pmu = perf_pmus__find_core_pmu();
 	char *cpuid = perf_pmu__getcpuid(pmu);
 	char *escaped_cpuid1, *escaped_cpuid2;
 
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/expr.c b/tools/perf/util/expr.c
index 4488f306de78..7be23b3ac082 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/expr.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/expr.c
@@ -509,7 +509,7 @@  double expr__strcmp_cpuid_str(const struct expr_parse_ctx *ctx __maybe_unused,
 		       bool compute_ids __maybe_unused, const char *test_id)
 {
 	double ret;
-	struct perf_pmu *pmu = pmu__find_core_pmu();
+	struct perf_pmu *pmu = perf_pmus__find_core_pmu();
 	char *cpuid = perf_pmu__getcpuid(pmu);
 
 	if (!cpuid)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
index 152cda84f273..8213e26783a1 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
@@ -2049,20 +2049,3 @@  void perf_pmu__delete(struct perf_pmu *pmu)
 	zfree(&pmu->id);
 	free(pmu);
 }
-
-struct perf_pmu *pmu__find_core_pmu(void)
-{
-	struct perf_pmu *pmu = NULL;
-
-	while ((pmu = perf_pmus__scan_core(pmu))) {
-		/*
-		 * The cpumap should cover all CPUs. Otherwise, some CPUs may
-		 * not support some events or have different event IDs.
-		 */
-		if (RC_CHK_ACCESS(pmu->cpus)->nr != cpu__max_cpu().cpu)
-			return NULL;
-
-		return pmu;
-	}
-	return NULL;
-}
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmu.h b/tools/perf/util/pmu.h
index 6a4e170c61d6..45079f26abf6 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/pmu.h
+++ b/tools/perf/util/pmu.h
@@ -264,6 +264,6 @@  int perf_pmu__pathname_fd(int dirfd, const char *pmu_name, const char *filename,
 struct perf_pmu *perf_pmu__lookup(struct list_head *pmus, int dirfd, const char *lookup_name);
 struct perf_pmu *perf_pmu__create_placeholder_core_pmu(struct list_head *core_pmus);
 void perf_pmu__delete(struct perf_pmu *pmu);
-struct perf_pmu *pmu__find_core_pmu(void);
+struct perf_pmu *perf_pmus__find_core_pmu(void);
 
 #endif /* __PMU_H */
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmus.c b/tools/perf/util/pmus.c
index 6631367c756f..032ce57d2b8e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/pmus.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/pmus.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ 
 #include <pthread.h>
 #include <string.h>
 #include <unistd.h>
+#include "cpumap.h"
 #include "debug.h"
 #include "evsel.h"
 #include "pmus.h"
@@ -592,3 +593,20 @@  struct perf_pmu *evsel__find_pmu(const struct evsel *evsel)
 	}
 	return pmu;
 }
+
+struct perf_pmu *perf_pmus__find_core_pmu(void)
+{
+	struct perf_pmu *pmu = NULL;
+
+	while ((pmu = perf_pmus__scan_core(pmu))) {
+		/*
+		 * The cpumap should cover all CPUs. Otherwise, some CPUs may
+		 * not support some events or have different event IDs.
+		 */
+		if (RC_CHK_ACCESS(pmu->cpus)->nr != cpu__max_cpu().cpu)
+			return NULL;
+
+		return pmu;
+	}
+	return NULL;
+}