Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf sched: Fix task state report

[Ze Gao]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:08 AM Ze Gao <zegao2021@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 6:45 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 5:54 PM Ze Gao <zegao2021@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 7:53 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernelorg> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 7:15 PM Ze Gao <zegao2021@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:00 AM Ze Gao <zegao2021@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:35 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:23 PM Ze Gao <zegao2021@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The problems of task state report in both libtraceevent
> > > > > > > > and perf sched has been reported in [1]. In short, they
> > > > > > > > parsed the wrong state due to relying on the outdated
> > > > > > > > hardcoded state string to interpret the raw bitmask
> > > > > > > > from the record, which left the messes to maintain the
> > > > > > > > backward compatibilities for both tools.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] has not managed to make itself into the kernel, the
> > > > > > > > problems and the solutions are well studied though.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Luckily, as suggested by Steven, perf/libtraceevent
> > > > > > > > records the print format, especially the __print_flags()
> > > > > > > > part of the in-kernel tracepoint sched_switch in its
> > > > > > > > metadata, and we have a chance to build the state str
> > > > > > > > on the fly by parsing it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now that libtraceevent has landed this solution in [2],
> > > > > > > > we now apply the same idea to perf as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your work.  But perf links libtraceevent
> > > > > > > conditionally so you need to make sure if it works without
> > > > > > > that too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I've tested with NO_LIBTRACEEVENT=1, and it turns
> > > > > > out perf removes perf sched subcmd without libtraceevent,
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW,  commit 378ef0f5d9d7f4 ("perf build: Use libtraceevent
> > > > > from the system") has proved this as well.
> > > >
> > > > Right, but I think we can enable perf sched without libtraceevent
> > > > for minimal features like record only.  But that doesn't belong to
> > > > this change set.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > which explains why the compiler does not complain no
> > > > > > evsel__intval() defined when !HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT
> > > > > > given the fact so many references of evsel__intval() in
> > > > > > builtin-sched.c.
> > > > > > Here evsel__taskstate() uses the exact assumption as
> > > > > > evsel__intval(), so I put it next to it for clarity and it works
> > > > > > without a doubt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think all libtraceevent related stuff should be in the
> > > > > > > util/trace-event.c which is included only if the library is
> > > > > > > available.  Maybe util/trace-event-parse.c is a better
> > > > > > > place but then you need to tweak the python-ext-sources
> > > > > > > and Makefile.perf for the case it's not available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for pointing this out. I will do the hack if you insist
> > > > > > on this move :D. But I think the current version is clear
> > > > > > enough, otherwise we need to move all the parts guarded
> > > > > > by #ifdef HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT out for complete decoupling.
> > > > > > What do you think of it?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I realized that all the affected codes are under the #ifdef
> > > > properly then maybe it's ok for now.  But I prefer moving the
> > > > code if you're ok.  Maybe I can accept this code as is and you
> > >
> > > Sounds great!
> > >
> > > > can work on the refactoring later.  Does that work for you?
> > >
> > > Absolutely! Will send the following refactoring patches soon. :D
> >
> > Thanks, but your patches don't apply cleanly.  Could you please
> > rebase it onto the current perf-tools-next tree?
>
> Oops, that is kinda weird. I've tested and managed to cherry-picked all 4
> patches onto branch perf-tools-next in [1], with no conflicts being
> hit.  Maybe I used the wrong branch tip?

For reference, it ends up like:
    https://github.com/zegao96/linux/commits/perf-tools-next/

> FWIW:  the tip I rebase onto is
>
> d988c9f511af (perf/perf-tools-next) MAINTAINERS: Add Namhyung as
> tools/perf/ co-maintainer
>
> [1]:  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/
>
> Regards,
>         -- Ze
>
> > Thanks,
> > Namhyung