Re: [PATCH V2 2/6] perf: Add branch stack extension

[Liang, Kan]

On 2023-08-02 5:58 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 04:30:36AM -0700, kan.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Currently, the extra information of a branch entry is stored in a u64
>> space. With more and more information added, the space is running out.
>> For example, the information of occurrences of events will be added for
>> each branch.
>>
>> Add an extension space to record the new information for each branch
>> entry. The space is appended after the struct perf_branch_stack.
>>
>> Add a bit in struct perf_branch_entry to indicate whether the extra
>> information is included.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> New patch
>> - Introduce a generic extension space which can be used to
>>   store the LBR event information for Intel. It can also be used by
>>   other ARCHs for the other purpose.
>> - Add a new bit in struct perf_branch_entry to indicate whether the
>>   extra information is included.
> 
> Bah.. I don't like this, also the actual format isn't clear to me.
> 
> The uapi part is severely lacking, it just adds the ext:1 thing, but
> doesn't describe what if anything happens when it's set.
> 
> The internal perf_branch_stack_ext thing is just that, internal.
> Additionally it contains a nr member, which seems to suggest it can be
> different from the number of entries in the branch-stack itself -- which
> would be odd indeed.
> 
> So we have an 'ext' bit per branch entry to indicate the existance of
> this extra data, this again suggests no 1:1 correspondence, but at most
> one extra entry per set bit.
> 
> Parsing this will be pretty horrible, no?
> 
> So what we have now is:
> 
> 	{ u64			nr;
> 	  { u64 hw_idx; } && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX
> 	  { u64 from, to, flags; } lbr[nr];
> 	} && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> 
> and AFAICT you're doing:
> 
> 	{ u64			nr;
> 	  { u64 hw_idx; } && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX
> 	  { u64 from, to, flags; } lbr[nr];
> +	  { u64	nr2;
> +	    { u64 extra; } extra[nr2];
> +         } && OR_i{lbr[i].flags.ext}
> 	} && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> 
> Which is pretty horrific, no? The straight forward:

I just tried to make the interface more flexible, since I had no idea
how other ARCHs would use the extra space. But it seems such flexibility
is not necessary. It is indeed not easy to be parsed.

> 
> 	{ u64			nr;
> 	  { u64 hw_idx; } && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX
> 	  { u64 from, to, flags; } lbr[nr];
> +	  { u64 extra; } ext[nr] && SOMETHING
> 	} && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> 
> Or perhaps even:
> 
> 	{ u64			nr;
> 	  { u64 hw_idx; } && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX
> 	  { u64 from, to, flags; 
> +	    u64 extra; && SOMETHING
> 	  } lbr[nr];
> 	} && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> 
> With the obvious question what 'SOMETHING' should be. I suppose
> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EXTRA was considered and discarded?

Yes, it's considered. I once tried to reuse the existing space/structure
as much as possible. So it's dropped.

Other than that, using a new sample type as an indicator should be a
better way and much straight forward. I will use it in V3.

> 
> Implementing the last suggestion wouldn't even be too bad, since having
> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EXTRA set, we know to allocate and cast the existing
> perf_sample_data::br_stack to a convenient new type, something like:
> 
> struct perf_branch_entry_ext {
> 	__u64	from;
> 	__u64	to;
> 	__u64	mispred:1,  /* target mispredicted */
> 		predicted:1,/* target predicted */
> 		in_tx:1,    /* in transaction */
> 		abort:1,    /* transaction abort */
> 		cycles:16,  /* cycle count to last branch */
> 		type:4,     /* branch type */
> 		spec:2,     /* branch speculation info */
> 		new_type:4, /* additional branch type */
> 		priv:3,     /* privilege level */
> 		reserved:31;
> 	__u64	extra;
> };
> 
> Except at that point I think I would suggest doing s/EXTRA/COUNTERS/g
> and making it something like:
> 
> 	union {
> 		__u64	counters;
> 		__u8 	c[8];
> 	};
> 

It's good enough for this feature and Intel LBR.
My only concern is that it's only a 64 bit extra space. If we need more
space later, we have to keep adding perf_branch_entry_ext2 and
PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EXTRA2. But I don't have such use case now. Maybe I'm
just too paranoid. :)

I will use the suggested structure in V3. If anyone has other concerns,
we can discuss them from there.

Thanks,
Kan

> Or something daft like that.
> 
> Wouldn't all that make *MUCH* more sense?