Re: [RFC 0/5] perf: Create hist_entry groups

[Don Zickus]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 05:29:09PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Don,
> 
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:08:41 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:01:50PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> Hi Don,
> >> 
> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:10:56 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> >> > This patchset creates a new layer of hist entry objects called
> >> > hist_entry_groups.  The purpose is to help organize the hist_entries
> >> > into groups before sorting them.  As a result you can gain a
> >> > new perspective on the data by organizing the groups into cpu, pid
> >> > or cacheline.  See patch 5 for sample output.
> >> >
> >> > The main driver for this patchset is to find a way to sort and display
> >> > cacheline data in a way that is useful.  My previous attempts seemed
> >> > hackish until I realized cacheline sorting is really just a collection
> >> > of hist_entries.  Anyway that was my focus for doing this.
> >> >
> >> > The overall idea looks like:
> >> >
> >> > evlist
> >> >   evsel
> >> >     hists
> >> >         hist_entry_group  <<< new object
> >> >           hist_entry
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Implementing this was not pretty.  I tried to seperate the patches the
> >> > best I could.  But in order for each patch to compile, patch 4 turned into
> >> > a 1400 line diff that is mostly noise.
> >> >
> >> > Also, this patchset breaks most tools (mainly because I don't understand
> >> > all the interactions), hence the RFC.  I mostly tested with 'perf report
> >> >  --stdio' and 'perf mem report --stdio'.
> >> >
> >> > Please let me know if this is an interesting idea to go forward with or not.
> >> 
> >> I'd like to show you my previous two patchsets.
> >> 
> >> The first one is for adding --field option and changing the sort
> >> behavior little different [1].  I'm about to send a new version to the
> >> list soon.
> >> 
> >> I think what you want to do is sorting output by an order of sort keys
> >> not just by the overhead.  So with the patchset applied, you can do it
> >> like:
> >> 
> >>   $ perf report --field overhead,pid,dso,sym --sort pid
> >> 
> >>   # Overhead         Command:  Pid      Shared Object                             
> >>   # ........  ....................  .................  ...........................
> >>   #
> >>       32.93%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] intel_idle             
> >>        6.79%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] enqueue_entity         
> >>        1.42%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] update_sd_lb_stats     
> >>        1.30%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] timekeeping_max_deferme
> >>        1.18%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] update_cfs_shares      
> >>        1.07%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __irq_work_run         
> >>        0.96%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] rcu_check_callbacks    
> >>        0.64%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] irqtime_account_process
> >>        0.50%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] int_sqrt               
> >>        0.47%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __tick_nohz_idle_enter 
> >>        0.47%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] menu_select            
> >>        0.35%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] run_timer_softirq      
> >>        0.16%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __perf_event_enable    
> >>        0.12%         swapper:    0  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] rcu_eqs_exit_common.isr
> >>        0.50%      watchdog/6:   37  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] update_sd_lb_stats     
> >>        3.45%            Xorg: 1335  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] schedule               
> >>        6.55%  gnome-terminal: 1903  libc-2.17.so       [.] __strcmp_sse42         
> >>        1.59%         firefox: 2137  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] cpuacct_charge         
> >>        0.50%           emacs: 2473  emacs-24.1         [.] 0x000000000012241a     
> >>        0.38%           emacs: 2473  emacs-24.1         [.] 0x00000000000bfbf7     
> >>        0.31%           emacs: 2473  emacs-24.1         [.] 0x00000000001780dd     
> >>        0.29%           emacs: 2473  emacs-24.1         [.] 0x000000000002eb48     
> >>        4.40%     kworker/7:1:11028  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] generic_exec_single    
> >>        1.30%     kworker/0:0:25667  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] generic_exec_single    
> >>        5.93%     kworker/5:1:26447  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] generic_exec_single    
> >>        2.06%     kworker/1:2:26653  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] generic_exec_single    
> >> 
> >> As you can see the output is now sorted by pid value (and then overhead,
> >> dso, sym if previous key resulted in a same value), so swapper (pid 0)
> >> comes first and then watchdog/6, Xorg, and so on..
> >
> > This is probably a workable solution for our c2c tool.  I can play with
> > this some more.
> 
> Cool. :)

Sorry for the long delay, I was out last week at our summit.  Not much for
stable internet access...  Will try to test these patches tomorrow.

> 
> >
> >> 
> >> But it's not guarantee that the hottest pid comes always first on the
> >> output, it just sorted it by pid and it gets the result simply because
> >> the system was idle mostly.  I think you can handle it in your c2c tool
> >> properly though.
> >> 
> >> Another one I'd like to introduce is somewhat similar to your work.
> >> It's called hierarchy view and groups each entries according to sort
> >> keys [2].  But it only supported --gtk output at that time (in order not
> >> to make the hands dirty unnecessarily ;-) and (thus?) didn't get much
> >> review.  But I think the idea is same and requires less change by just
> >> adding few fields (rb_root) to hist_entry instead of new data structure.
> >
> > Looks promising.
> >
> > I keep thinking with all these hist_entry hacks to support flexibility, if
> > we should just do some bigger changes to the design.  I was thinking along
> > the lines of combining hist_entries and callchain stuff and maybe output
> > changes into a unified heirarchy somehow.  This way we could re-use alot
> > of code and throw away all the silly callchain special cases and just
> > treat it like a sort_entry.
> >
> > I am not sure how that would work (or if really possible), but I was
> > playing with ideas in my head based on Jiri's suggestion, of something
> > like a tree layout where 'struct hists' would be sorta like a directory
> > and would dictate the data type in the 'files' of 'struct hist_entry'.
> >
> > The idea was 'struct hists' would normally have a HIST data type and
> > contain the specific sort_entry(ies) for its heirarchy.  The 'struct
> > hist_entries' below it would all be the normal HIST data type.  For
> > callchain support, there would be a 'struct hist' under each 'hist_entry'
> > that would be of data type CALLCHAIN and its sort specific rules.
> >
> > This way we could add display a callchain anywhere in the heirarchy
> > (instead of the normal last position).
> 
> I don't understand what you want to do - having callchains in the middle
> is not intuitive to me.  Btw, you may want to check my cumulative (or
> children) work which adds callchains into normal output.

Callchains in the middle was to mimic what I did with our c2c tool.  First
we sorted with such granularity, there was basically few in any duplicate
entries.  So displaying a callchain with our tool would look messy.
Instead we were displaying on 'cachelines'.  As a result I 'merged' each
entries callchain (after filtering out non-HITMs but kept stores) into a
cacheline callchain and displayed that.

So the idea was to sort on a cacheline, sort on callchains, then sort on
additional granularity like iaddr, data source, tids, etc.. so if the user
wanted to display them, they look sorted.  But it wasn't going to affect
the overall output.

It may not be the most thought out idea, it was something we had with our
tool and I was going for flexibility.

> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/50

I think I understand what you are doing here, but I am confused because I
thought the original call graph percentages were the weighted percents of
each path.  But now your patch is adding those explicitly.  So I don't
understand the difference with the original behaviour. :-(

Cheers,
Don
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/