Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf/core, x86: Add PERF_SAMPLE_LBR_TOS

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:53:24AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/8/2019 4:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:59:01AM -0700, kan.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > > index 61448c19a132..ee9ef0c4cb08 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > > @@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ struct perf_raw_record {
> > >    */
> > >   struct perf_branch_stack {
> > >   	__u64				nr;
> > > +	__u64				tos;
> > >   	struct perf_branch_entry	entries[0];
> > >   };
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> > > index bb7b271397a6..fe36ebb7dc2e 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> > > @@ -141,8 +141,9 @@ enum perf_event_sample_format {
> > >   	PERF_SAMPLE_TRANSACTION			= 1U << 17,
> > >   	PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR			= 1U << 18,
> > >   	PERF_SAMPLE_PHYS_ADDR			= 1U << 19,
> > > +	PERF_SAMPLE_LBR_TOS			= 1U << 20,
> > > -	PERF_SAMPLE_MAX = 1U << 20,		/* non-ABI */
> > > +	PERF_SAMPLE_MAX = 1U << 21,		/* non-ABI */
> > >   	__PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY		= 1ULL << 63, /* non-ABI; internal use */
> > >   };
> > > @@ -864,6 +865,7 @@ enum perf_event_type {
> > >   	 *	{ u64			abi; # enum perf_sample_regs_abi
> > >   	 *	  u64			regs[weight(mask)]; } && PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR
> > >   	 *	{ u64			phys_addr;} && PERF_SAMPLE_PHYS_ADDR
> > > +	 *	{ u64			tos;} && PERF_SAMPLE_LBR_TOS
> > >   	 * };
> > >   	 */
> > >   	PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE			= 9,
> > 
> > I have problems with the API.. You're introducing the intel specific LBR
> > naming, and adding a whole new sample type vs extending the existing
> > BRANCH_STACK (like you really already do with struct perf_branch_stack). >
> > So why not add a bit to PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_* to request the presence of
> > the TOS field in the PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK output?
> 
> We never store PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_* in a sample. The perf tool cannot tell
> if the sample includes TOS field.

The perf tool bloody sets the perf_event_attr::branch_sample_type value!
Of course it knows to expect the TOS field when it asks for it in the
first place.

> There will be a problem when a new perf tool parsing the data generated by
> an old kernel.

ISTR perf stores the full perf_event_attr in the .data file these days,
and therefore such confusion should never happen.