Re: [PATCH v4 00/18]

From: Ian Rogers

Date: Tue Nov 11 2025 - 18:13:47 EST


On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 2:42 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 01:21:48PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > Prior to this series stat-shadow would produce hard coded metrics if
> > certain events appeared in the evlist. This series produces equivalent
> > json metrics and cleans up the consequences in tests and display
> > output. A before and after of the default display output on a
> > tigerlake is:
> >
> > Before:
> > ```
> > $ perf stat -a sleep 1
> >
> > Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> >
> > 16,041,816,418 cpu-clock # 15.995 CPUs utilized
> > 5,749 context-switches # 358.376 /sec
> > 121 cpu-migrations # 7.543 /sec
> > 1,806 page-faults # 112.581 /sec
> > 825,965,204 instructions # 0.70 insn per cycle
> > 1,180,799,101 cycles # 0.074 GHz
> > 168,945,109 branches # 10.532 M/sec
> > 4,629,567 branch-misses # 2.74% of all branches
> > # 30.2 % tma_backend_bound
> > # 7.8 % tma_bad_speculation
> > # 47.1 % tma_frontend_bound
> > # 14.9 % tma_retiring
> > ```
> >
> > After:
> > ```
> > $ perf stat -a sleep 1
> >
> > Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> >
> > 2,890 context-switches # 179.9 cs/sec cs_per_second
> > 16,061,923,339 cpu-clock # 16.0 CPUs CPUs_utilized
> > 43 cpu-migrations # 2.7 migrations/sec migrations_per_second
> > 5,645 page-faults # 351.5 faults/sec page_faults_per_second
> > 5,708,413 branch-misses # 1.4 % branch_miss_rate (88.83%)
> > 429,978,120 branches # 26.8 M/sec branch_frequency (88.85%)
> > 1,626,915,897 cpu-cycles # 0.1 GHz cycles_frequency (88.84%)
> > 2,556,805,534 instructions # 1.5 instructions insn_per_cycle (88.86%)
> > TopdownL1 # 20.1 % tma_backend_bound
> > # 40.5 % tma_bad_speculation (88.90%)
> > # 17.2 % tma_frontend_bound (78.05%)
> > # 22.2 % tma_retiring (88.89%)
> >
> > 1.002994394 seconds time elapsed
> > ```
> >
> > Having the metrics in json brings greater uniformity, allows events to
> > be shared by metrics, and it also allows descriptions like:
> > ```
> > $ perf list cs_per_second
> > ...
> > cs_per_second
> > [Context switches per CPU second]
> > ```
> >
> > A thorn in the side of doing this work was that the hard coded metrics
> > were used by perf script with '-F metric'. This functionality didn't
> > work for me (I was testing `perf record -e instructions,cycles`
> > with/without leader sampling and then `perf script -F metric` but saw
> > nothing but empty lines) but anyway I decided to fix it to the best of
> > my ability in this series. So the script side counters were removed
> > and the regular ones associated with the evsel used. The json metrics
> > were all searched looking for ones that have a subset of events
> > matching those in the perf script session, and all metrics are
> > printed. This is kind of weird as the counters are being set by the
> > period of samples, but I carried the behavior forward. I suspect there
> > needs to be follow up work to make this better, but what is in the
> > series is superior to what is currently in the tree. Follow up work
> > could include finding metrics for the machine in the perf.data rather
> > than using the host, allowing multiple metrics even if the metric ids
> > of the events differ, fixing pre-existing `perf stat record/report`
> > issues, etc.
> >
> > There is a lot of stat tests that, for example, assume '-e
> > instructions,cycles' will produce an IPC metric. These things needed
> > tidying as now the metric must be explicitly asked for and when doing
> > this ones using software events were preferred to increase
> > compatibility. As the test updates were numerous they are distinct to
> > the patches updating the functionality causing periods in the series
> > where not all tests are passing. If this is undesirable the test fixes
> > can be squashed into the functionality updates, but this will be kind
> > of messy, especially as at some points in the series both the old
> > metrics and the new metrics will be displayed.
> >
> > v4: K/sec to M/sec on branch frequency (Namhyung), perf script -F
> > metric to-done a system-wide calculation (Namhyung) and don't
> > crash because of the CPU map index couldn't be found. Regenerate
> > commit messages but the cpu-clock was always yielding 0 on my
> > machine leading to a lot of nan metric values.
>
> This is strange. The cpu-clock should not be 0 as long as you ran it.
> Do you think it's related to the scale unit change? I tested v3 and
> didn't see the problem.

It looked like a kernel issue. The raw counts were 0 before being
scaled. All metrics always work on unscaled values. It is only the
commit messages and the formatting is more important than the numeric
values - which were correct for a cpu-clock of 0.

Thanks,
Ian