Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] perf metrics: Don't iter sys metrics if we already found a CPU match

[John Garry]

On 30/06/2023 18:41, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:30 AM John Garry<john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > In metricgroup__add_metric() we still iter the sys metrics if we already
> > found a match from the CPU table, which is pretty pointless, so don't
> > bother.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c | 7 +++++++
> >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
> > index 4389ccd29fe7..8d2ac2513530 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
> > @@ -1261,6 +1261,12 @@ static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *pmu, const char *metric_name, con
> >
> >                  has_match = data.has_match;
> >          }

Hi Ian,

> > +
> > +       if (has_match) {
> > +               ret = 0;
> > +               goto out;
> > +       }
> > +
> I think this can just be:
>
> if (!has_match)

But ret has no initial value

> However, I'm not sure I agree with the intent of the change. We may
> have a metric like IPC and want it to apply to all types of CPU, GPU,
> etc. If we short-cut here then that won't be possible.

A few points to make on this:
- Currently we don't have any same-named metrics like this, so not much 
use in supporting it in the code (yet).
- Even if we had some same-named metrics, I am not sure if it even works 
properly. Do we have any uncore PMU metrics which have same name as CPU 
metrics?
- Further to the previous point, do we really want same-named metrics 
for different PMUs in the future? I think event / metric names need to 
be chosen carefully to avoid clash for other PMUs or keywords. For your 
example, if I did ask for IPC metric, I'd like to be able to just know 
I'm getting IPC metric for CPUs or some other PMUs, but not both.

Thanks,
John

>