Re: [PATCH v3] perf evsel: Fix missing exclude_{host,guest} setting

[Stephane Eranian]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 12:24 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 04:21:21PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Jiri,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:10 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 03:49:29PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > The current logic for the perf missing feature has a bug that it can
> > > > wrongly clear some modifiers like G or H.  Actually some PMUs don't
> > > > support any filtering or exclusion while others do.  But we check it
> > > > as a global feature.
> > > >
> > > > For example, the cycles event can have 'G' modifier to enable it only
> > > > in the guest mode on x86.  When you don't run any VMs it'll return 0.
> > > >
> > > >   # perf stat -a -e cycles:G sleep 1
> > > >
> > > >     Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> > > >
> > > >                     0      cycles:G
> > > >
> > > >           1.000721670 seconds time elapsed
> > > >
> > > > But when it's used with other pmu events that don't support G modifier,
> > > > it'll be reset and return non-zero values.
> > > >
> > > >   # perf stat -a -e cycles:G,msr/tsc/ sleep 1
> > > >
> > > >     Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> > > >
> > > >           538,029,960      cycles:G
> > > >        16,924,010,738      msr/tsc/
> > > >
> > > >           1.001815327 seconds time elapsed
> > > >
> > > > This is because of the missing feature detection logic being global.
> > > > Add a hashmap to set pmu-specific exclude_host/guest features.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > v3 changes)
> > > >  * check memory allocation failure
> > > >  * add more NULL check
> > >
> > > we were discussing this with Arnaldo yesterday and he had an idea to use
> > > evsel->pmu link to store this info instead of hash.. I first thought we
> > > needed 'evsel' related data, but after I gave it some thought I think that
> > > might actually work
> >
> > I don't get it.. do we have evsel->pmu already?  Or do you want to add it?
> > Yeah, the filtering facility (attr.exclude_*) should be kept in a PMU data
> > not in the evsel.  So I added a hashmap to find the pmu data from attr.type.
> > How do I use evsel->pmu to store the info then?
>
> evsel->pmu is not there yet (only evsel->pmu_name) so that
> would need to be added.. we have evsel__find_pmu available
>
> then the idea is to use evsel->pmu instead of the hasmap,
> like add:
>
>   struct pmu {
>     ...
>     bool missing_exclude_guest;
>   };
>
> set it when the guest filtering fails and and check it
> instead of the hashmap__find call
>
> >
> > >
> > > my argument was following usecase:
> > >
> > >   cycles:G,instructions:G,pmu/bla1/:G,pmu/bla2/
> > >
> > > that we would falsely clear pmu/bla1/:G if we used the 'evsel->pmu' data..
> > > but then I realized it's detection if pmu support :G and so if the :G is
> > > not there, none of the events should have it
> > >
> > > thoughts?
> >
> > I don't think I'm following well... ;-p
> >
> > If the pmu doesn't support host/guest filtering, pmu/bla1/G
> > may count something.  Not sure if it's better to error out.
> > But the cycles:G and instructions:G should result in 0
> > in case there's no VM running.
>
> hm, I think if pmu doesn't support host/guest filtering then
> I think 'pmu/bla1/G' should error, no? better no number than
> bad number
>
Yes, it should in my opinion.

> jitka
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Namhyung
> >
>