Re: [RFC 00/11] perf: Enhancing perf to export processor hazard information

[Ravi Bangoria]

Hi Kim,

On 3/6/20 3:36 AM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > On 3/3/20 3:55 AM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > > On 3/2/20 2:21 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:13 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:53:44AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> > > > > > Modern processors export such hazard data in Performance
> > > > > > Monitoring Unit (PMU) registers. Ex, 'Sampled Instruction Event
> > > > > > Register' on IBM PowerPC[1][2] and 'Instruction-Based Sampling' on
> > > > > > AMD[3] provides similar information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Implementation detail:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A new sample_type called PERF_SAMPLE_PIPELINE_HAZ is introduced.
> > > > > > If it's set, kernel converts arch specific hazard information
> > > > > > into generic format:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  ÂÂ struct perf_pipeline_haz_data {
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* Instruction/Opcode type: Load, Store, Branch .... */
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ __u8ÂÂÂ itype;
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* Instruction Cache source */
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ __u8ÂÂÂ icache;
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* Instruction suffered hazard in pipeline stage */
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ __u8ÂÂÂ hazard_stage;
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* Hazard reason */
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ __u8ÂÂÂ hazard_reason;
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* Instruction suffered stall in pipeline stage */
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ __u8ÂÂÂ stall_stage;
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* Stall reason */
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ __u8ÂÂÂ stall_reason;
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ __u16ÂÂ pad;
> > > > > >  ÂÂ };
> > > > >
> > > > > Kim, does this format indeed work for AMD IBS?
> > >
> > > It's not really 1:1, we don't have these separations of stages
> > > and reasons, for example: we have missed in L2 cache, for example.
> > > So IBS output is flatter, with more cycle latency figures than
> > > IBM's AFAICT.
> >
> > AMD IBS captures pipeline latency data incase Fetch sampling like the
> > Fetch latency, tag to retire latency, completion to retire latency and
> > so on. Yes, Ops sampling do provide more data on load/store centric
> > information. But it also captures more detailed data for Branch instructions.
> > And we also looked at ARM SPE, which also captures more details pipeline
> > data and latency information.
> >
> > > > Personally, I don't like the term hazard. This is too IBM Power
> > > > specific. We need to find a better term, maybe stall or penalty.
> > >
> > > Right, IBS doesn't have a filter to only count stalled or otherwise
> > > bad events. IBS' PPR descriptions has one occurrence of the
> > > word stall, and no penalty. The way I read IBS is it's just
> > > reporting more sample data than just the precise IP: things like
> > > hits, misses, cycle latencies, addresses, types, etc., so words
> > > like 'extended', or the 'auxiliary' already used today even
> > > are more appropriate for IBS, although I'm the last person to
> > > bikeshed.
> >
> > We are thinking of using "pipeline" word instead of Hazard.
>
> Hm, the word 'pipeline' occurs 0 times in IBS documentation.

NP. We thought pipeline is generic hw term so we proposed "pipeline"
word. We are open to term which can be generic enough.

> I realize there are a couple of core pipeline-specific pieces
> of information coming out of it, but the vast majority
> are addresses, latencies of various components in the memory
> hierarchy, and various component hit/miss bits.

Yes. we should capture core pipeline specific details. For example,
IBS generates Branch unit information(IbsOpData1) and Icahce related
data(IbsFetchCtl) which is something that shouldn't be extended as
part of perf-mem, IMO.

> What's needed here is a vendor-specific extended
> sample information that all these technologies gather,
> of which things like e.g., 'L1 TLB cycle latency' we
> all should have in common.

Yes. We will include fields to capture the latency cycles (like Issue
latency, Instruction completion latency etc..) along with other pipeline
details in the proposed structure.

> I'm not sure why a new PERF_SAMPLE_PIPELINE_HAZ is needed
> either.  Can we use PERF_SAMPLE_AUX instead?

We took a look at PERF_SAMPLE_AUX. IIUC, PERF_SAMPLE_AUX is intended when
large volume of data needs to be captured as part of perf.data without
frequent PMIs. But proposed type is to address the capture of pipeline
information on each sample using PMI at periodic intervals. Hence proposing
PERF_SAMPLE_PIPELINE_HAZ.

>  Take a look at
> commit 98dcf14d7f9c "perf tools: Add kernel AUX area sampling
> definitions".  The sample identifier can be used to determine
> which vendor's sampling IP's data is in it, and events can
> be recorded just by copying the content of the SIER, etc.
> registers, and then events get synthesized from the aux
> sample at report/inject/annotate etc. time.  This allows
> for less sample recording overhead, and moves all the vendor
> specific decoding and common event conversions for userspace
> to figure out.

When AUX buffer data is structured, tool side changes added to present the
pipeline data can be re-used.

> > > > Also worth considering is the support of ARM SPE (Statistical
> > > > Profiling Extension) which is their version of IBS.
> > > > Whatever gets added need to cover all three with no limitations.
> > >
> > > I thought Intel's various LBR, PEBS, and PT supported providing
> > > similar sample data in perf already, like with perf mem/c2c?
> >
> > perf-mem is more of data centric in my opinion. It is more towards
> > memory profiling. So proposal here is to expose pipeline related
> > details like stalls and latencies.
>
> Like I said, I don't see it that way, I see it as "any particular
> vendor's event's extended details', and these pipeline details
> have overlap with existing infrastructure within perf, e.g., L2
> cache misses.
>
> Kim