Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] perf record: Prevent override of attr->sample_period for libpfm4 events

[Ian Rogers]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:34 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 11:51 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Em Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 03:50:13PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > Em Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 03:48:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > > Em Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 09:22:10AM -0700, Ian Rogers escreveu:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:03 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:41:14PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:24 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:10 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:59:46PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 01:57:31AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > [jolsa@krava perf]$ sudo ./perf test 17 -v
> > > > > > > > > 17: Setup struct perf_event_attr                          :
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > running './tests/attr/test-record-C0'
> > > > > > > > > expected sample_period=4000, got 3000
> > > > > > > > > FAILED './tests/attr/test-record-C0' - match failure
> > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not able to reproduce this. Do you have a build configuration or
> > > > > > > > something else to look at? The test doesn't seem obviously connected
> > > > > > > > with this patch.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Jiri, any update? Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > > > sorry, I rebased and ran it again and it passes for me now,
> > > > > > so it got fixed along the way
> > > >
> > > > > No worries, thanks for the update! It'd be nice to land this and the
> > > > > other libpfm fixes.
> > > >
> > > > I applied it and it generated this regression:
> > > >
> > > > FAILED '/home/acme/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/test-record-pfm-period' - match failure
> > > >
> > > > I'll look at the other patches that are pending in this regard to see
> > > > what needs to be squashed so that we don't break bisect.
> > >
> > > So, more context:
> > >
> > > running '/home/acme/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/test-record-pfm-period'
> > > expected exclude_hv=0, got 1
> > > FAILED '/home/acme/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/test-record-pfm-period' - match failure
> > > test child finished with -1
> > > ---- end ----
> > > Setup struct perf_event_attr: FAILED!
> > > [root@five ~]#
> > >
> > > Ian, can you take a look at this?
> >
> > Further tests I've performed:
> >
> >     Committer testing:
> >
> >     Not linking with libpfm:
> >
> >       # ldd ~/bin/perf | grep libpfm
> >       #
> >
> >     Before:
> >
> >       # perf record -c 10000 -e cycles/period=12345/,instructions sleep 0.0001
> >       [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> >       [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.052 MB perf.data (258 samples) ]
> >       # perf evlist -v
> >       cycles/period=12345/: size: 120, { sample_period, sample_freq }: 12345, sample_type: IP|TID|TIME|ID, read_format: ID, disabled: 1, inherit: 1, mmap: 1, comm: 1, enable_on_exec: 1, task: 1, sample_id_all: 1, exclude_guest: 1, mmap2: 1, comm_exec: 1, ksymbol: 1, bpf_event: 1
> >       instructions: size: 120, config: 0x1, { sample_period, sample_freq }: 10000, sample_type: IP|TID|TIME|ID, read_format: ID, disabled: 1, inherit: 1, enable_on_exec: 1, sample_id_all: 1, exclude_guest: 1
> >       #
> >
> >     After:
> >
> >       #
> >       # perf record -c 10000 -e cycles/period=12345/,instructions sleep 0.0001
> >       [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> >       [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.053 MB perf.data (284 samples) ]
> >       # perf evlist -v
> >       cycles/period=12345/: size: 120, { sample_period, sample_freq }: 12345, sample_type: IP|TID|TIME|ID, read_format: ID, disabled: 1, inherit: 1, mmap: 1, comm: 1, enable_on_exec: 1, task: 1, sample_id_all: 1, exclude_guest: 1, mmap2: 1, comm_exec: 1, ksymbol: 1, bpf_event: 1
> >       instructions: size: 120, config: 0x1, { sample_period, sample_freq }: 10000, sample_type: IP|TID|TIME|ID, read_format: ID, disabled: 1, inherit: 1, enable_on_exec: 1, sample_id_all: 1, exclude_guest: 1
> >       #
> >
> >     Linking with libpfm:
> >
> >       # ldd ~/bin/perf | grep libpfm
> >             libpfm.so.4 => /lib64/libpfm.so.4 (0x00007f54c7d75000)
> >       #
> >
> >       # perf record -c 10000 --pfm-events=cycles:period=77777 sleep 1
> >       [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> >       [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.043 MB perf.data (141 samples) ]
> >       # perf evlist -v
> >       cycles:period=77777: size: 120, { sample_period, sample_freq }: 10000, sample_type: IP|TID|TIME, read_format: ID, disabled: 1, inherit: 1, exclude_hv: 1, mmap: 1, comm: 1, enable_on_exec: 1, task: 1, sample_id_all: 1, exclude_guest: 1, mmap2: 1, comm_exec: 1, ksymbol: 1, bpf_event: 1
> >       #
> >
> >     After:
> >
> >       # perf record -c 10000 --pfm-events=cycles:period=77777 sleep 1
> >       [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> >       [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.039 MB perf.data (19 samples) ]
> >       # perf evlist -v
> >       cycles:period=77777: size: 120, { sample_period, sample_freq }: 77777, sample_type: IP|TID|TIME, read_format: ID, disabled: 1, inherit: 1, exclude_hv: 1, mmap: 1, comm: 1, enable_on_exec: 1, task: 1, sample_id_all: 1, exclude_guest: 1, mmap2: 1, comm_exec: 1, ksymbol: 1, bpf_event: 1
> >       #
> >
> Hi Arnaldo,
>
> I've been trying to reproduce the test failure you mention and I've
> not been able to. This follow up e-mail seems to show things working
> as intended. Did the issue resolve itself?

It looks like the test to ensure the period for pfm events worked:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200728124539.GB40195@xxxxxxxxxx/
has been applied without the fixes in patches 1 and 2. I've resent the
patches, hopefully addressing all feedback.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200912025655.1337192-1-irogers@xxxxxxxxxx/

Thanks,
Ian