Re: [PATCH 3/4] perf stat: Add --metrics-file option
From: Jiri Olsa
Date: Wed May 13 2020 - 07:33:56 EST
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:04:55AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
SNIP
> > +METRICS FILE
> > +------------
> > +The file with metrics has following syntax:
> > +
> > + NAME = EXPRESSION ;
> > + NAME = EXPRESSION ;
> > + ...
> > +
> > +where NAME is unique identifier of the metric, which is later used in
> > +perf stat as -M option argument (see below).
> > +
> > +The EXPRESSION is the metric's formula with following grammar:
> > +
> > + EXPR: EVENT
> > + EXPR: EXPR if EXPR else EXPR
>
> Not introduced by this patch, but this patch is exposing it as an API.
yea, I was thinking about this and I think we will put a disclaimer in
here that this is not an API and the interface can change.. it's really
mostly intended to help out with running a custom metric which is not
compiled in ... I don't want to be commited to support old API
> This notion of if-else is really weird. For one thing there are no
> comparison operators. The unit test doesn't really help:
> ret |= test(&ctx, "1+1 if 3*4 else 0", 2);
> What kind of comparison is "3*4"? If 0.0 causes the else clause then will -0.0?
> A typical expression I see written in C is to give a ratio such:
> value = denom == 0 ? 0 : nom / denom;
> I've worked around encoding this by extending expr.y locally.
AFAICS it's used only with #SMT_on in the condition, aybe we could limit
the condition only for #SMT_on term?
>
> > + EXPR: NUMBER
> > + EXPR: EXPR | EXPR
> > + EXPR: EXPR & EXPR
> > + EXPR: EXPR ^ EXPR
>
> Again, it's odd that these cast the double to a long and then assign
> the result back to a double.
is this even used anywhere? perhaps it was added just to be complete
SNIP
> > + 2.002460174 0.86 23.37 0.86
> > + 3.003969795 1.03 23.93 1.03
> > + ...
>
> A feature request would be to allow metrics in terms of other metrics,
> not just events :-) For example, it is common to sum all cache
> hit/miss events. It is laborious to copy that expression for hit rate,
> miss rate, etc.
>
> Perhaps the expression parsing code should be folded into the event
> parsing code.
nice idea, but let's finish straighten up what we have first ;-)
I'll try to go through all the fixes/tests you posted and let's
get it in first
thanks,
jirka