Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 0/9] perf record: Implement BPF sample filter (v4)

[Namhyung Kim]

Hello,

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 8:27 AM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 14-Mar-23 5:09 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:04:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >> Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:28:03PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> >>>> It requires samples satisfy all the filter expressions otherwise it'd
> >>>> drop the sample.  IOW filter expressions are connected with logical AND
> >>>> operations unless they used "||" explicitly.  So if user has something
> >>>> like 'A, B || C, D', then BOTH A and D should be true AND either B or C
> >>>> also needs to be true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Essentially the BPF filter expression is:
> >>>>
> >>>>   <term> <operator> <value> (("," | "||") <term> <operator> <value>)*
> >>>>
> >>>> The <term> can be one of:
> >>>>   ip, id, tid, pid, cpu, time, addr, period, txn, weight, phys_addr,
> >>>>   code_pgsz, data_pgsz, weight1, weight2, weight3, ins_lat, retire_lat,
> >>>>   p_stage_cyc, mem_op, mem_lvl, mem_snoop, mem_remote, mem_lock,
> >>>>   mem_dtlb, mem_blk, mem_hops
> >>>>
> >>>> The <operator> can be one of:
> >>>>   ==, !=, >, >=, <, <=, &
> >>>>
> >>>> The <value> can be one of:
> >>>>   <number> (for any term)
> >>>>   na, load, store, pfetch, exec (for mem_op)
> >>>>   l1, l2, l3, l4, cxl, io, any_cache, lfb, ram, pmem (for mem_lvl)
> >>>>   na, none, hit, miss, hitm, fwd, peer (for mem_snoop)
> >>>>   remote (for mem_remote)
> >>>>   na, locked (for mem_locked)
> >>>>   na, l1_hit, l1_miss, l2_hit, l2_miss, any_hit, any_miss, walk, fault (for mem_dtlb)
> >>>>   na, by_data, by_addr (for mem_blk)
> >>>>   hops0, hops1, hops2, hops3 (for mem_hops)
> >>>
> >>> I think this and few examples should be added in perf-record man page.
> >>
> >> Agreed, and even mentioning cases where it overcome problems like the
> >> filtering you mentioned for AMD systems.
> >
> > So, what do you think is best? Wait for v5 or apply v4 and then add
> > documentation and other touches as followup patches?
>
> I'm fine with both :)

Unless there's an objection, I'd prefer you take the v4.
I'll send a documentation update later.

Thanks,
Namhyung