Re: [PATCH 1/1] events/core: fix error run/enable ratio display
From: Mark Rutland
Date: Wed Dec 18 2024 - 06:33:51 EST
Hi Peter, Levi,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:42:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> git log --oneline kernel/events/core.c
>
> Compare result with your subject.
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 08:46:56AM +0000, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > when runs below command (with core pmu) sometime perf prints error
> > ratio for each perf.
> >
> > sudo ./perf stat -vvv -e armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/ -e armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/ -- stress-ng --pthread=2 -t 2s
> > ...
> > armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/: -1: 1081702126 2289429840 2174835740
> > armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/: -1: 794080238 1950025700 847648440
> > armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/: 1138698008 2289429840 2174835740
> > armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/: 1826791390 1950025700 847648440
> >
> > Performance counter stats for 'stress-ng --pthread=2 -t 2s':
> >
> > 1,138,698,008 armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/ (94.99%)
> > 1,826,791,390 armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/ (43.47%)
>
> At this point I've no idea what the error is. You start by saying there
> is an error, but then give no clue.
I *think* what this was trying to say is along the lines of:
The perf core code fails to account for some time that an event is
inactive. This can be seen by opening two mutually-exclusive events,
whose active ratios should add to at most 100%, e.g.
| sudo ./perf stat -vvv -e armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/ -e armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/ -- stress-ng --pthread=2 -t 2s
| ...
| armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/: -1: 1081702126 2289429840 2174835740
| armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/: -1: 794080238 1950025700 847648440
| armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/: 1138698008 2289429840 2174835740
| armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/: 1826791390 1950025700 847648440
|
| Performance counter stats for 'stress-ng --pthread=2 -t 2s':
|
| 1,138,698,008 armv8_pmuv3_0/event=0x08/ (94.99%)
| 1,826,791,390 armv8_pmuv3_1/event=0x08/ (43.47%)
|
| ... where the active ratios add to 138.46%, which is clearly wrong.
|
| [ explanation of the reason for this, etc ]
Note: I haven't looked into the code in detail, so the above might be
wrong.
Levi, how about we have a chat offline about how to make this a bit
clearer? I'll be in the office later today.
Mark.
> > This happens because of missing total_enable_time of inactivate event.
> > it's enabled time doesn't update at the event_sched_out() because state
> > isn't PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE but PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE.
>
> time tracking doesn't happen at sched calls -- you'll find a grand total
> of 0 perf_event_update_time() calls in them.
>
> Also, things like group_sched_out() don't even call into
> event_sched_out() when !ACTIVE.
>
> So why is event_sched_out() the right place to change here?
>
> Also, I've still no clue under what condition all this is supposed to
> have happened :/
>
> > For example, Suppose there're two events:
> > e0: with pmu0 which supports only cpu0
> > e1: with pmu1 which supports only cpu1.
> > then
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1 CPU0
> > | in | out | | in | out | | in | out (exit) |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ctx->time | 0 | t1 | | t1 | t1 + t2 | | t1 + t2 | t1 + t2 + t3 |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > e0->ena | 0 | t1 | | t1 | t1 | | t1 + t2 | t1 + t2 + t3 |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > e0->run | 0 | t1 | | t1 | t1 + t2 | | t1 + t2 | t1 + t3 |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > e1->ena | 0 | 0 | | t1 | t1 + t2 | | t1 + t2 | t1 + t2 |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > e1->run | 0 | 0 | | 0 | t2 | | t1 + t2 | t2 |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > at the CPU0, state of e1 is PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE since it doesn't
> > support on CPU0. So when event_sched_out() it failed to update its
> > total_enable_time and it makes error print of run/ena ratio.
>
> Sorry, I have no idea what you're saying. I can't relate the table to
> the text in any meaningful way.
>