On 29/07/20 10:23 am, Jin, Yao wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Could you help to check if following condition will break PT?
>
> "(opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples &&
> !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel))"
Sorry for slow response - I've been away.
This is fine. It will not break PT.
no_aux_samples is useful for evsels that have been added by the code rather
than requested by the user. For old kernels PT adds sched_switch tracepoint
to track context switches (before the current context switch event was
added) and having auxiliary sample information unnecessarily uses up space
in the perf buffer.
Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hun...@intel.com>
>
> Thanks
> Jin Yao
>
> On 7/23/2020 9:01 AM, Jin, Yao wrote:
>> Hi Jiri, Adrian,
>>
>> On 7/22/2020 7:08 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 01:00:03PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we use -IXMM0, the attr>sample_regs_intr will be set with
>>>>>> PERF_REG_EXTENDED_MASK bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't make sense to set attr->sample_regs_intr for a
>>>>>> software dummy event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch adds dummy event checking before setting
>>>>>> attr->sample_regs_intr and attr->sample_regs_user.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After:
>>>>>> # ./perf record -e cycles:p -IXMM0 -a -- sleep 1
>>>>>> [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
>>>>>> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.413 MB perf.data (45 samples) ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Rebase to perf/core
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 0a892c1c9472 ("perf record: Add dummy event during system wide
>>>>>> synthesis")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jin Yao <yao....@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 6 ++++--
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
>>>>>> index 9aa51a65593d..11794d3b7879 100644
>>>>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
>>>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
>>>>>> @@ -1014,12 +1014,14 @@ void evsel__config(struct evsel *evsel, struct
>>>>>> record_opts *opts,
>>>>>> if (callchain && callchain->enabled && !evsel->no_aux_samples)
>>>>>> evsel__config_callchain(evsel, opts, callchain);
>>>>>> - if (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples) {
>>>>>> + if (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples &&
>>>>>> + !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel)) {
>>>>>
>>>>> hum, I thought it'd look something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (opts->sample_intr_regs && (!evsel->no_aux_samples ||
>>>>> !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel))
>>>>>
>>>>> but I'm not sure how no_aux_samples flag works exactly.. so it might be
>>>>> correct.. just making sure ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> cc-ing Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> jirka
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no_aux_samples is set to false by default and it's only set to true by
>>>> pt, right?
>>>>
>>>> So most of the time, !evsel->no_aux_samples is always true.
>>>>
>>>> if (opts->sample_intr_regs && (!evsel->no_aux_samples ||
>>>> !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel)) {
>>>> attr->sample_regs_intr = opts->sample_intr_regs;
>>>> evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, REGS_INTR);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> So even if the evsel is dummy event, the condition check is true. :(
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe I misunderstand anything?
>>>
>>> I was just curious, because I did not follow the no_aux_samples
>>> usage in detail.. so how about a case where:
>>>
>>> evsel->no_aux_samples == true and evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel) = false
>>>
>>> then the original condition will be false for non dummy event
>>>
>>> (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples &&
>>> !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel))
>>>
>>> is that ok?
>>>
>>
>> I searched the perf source and found the no_aux_samples was only set to
>> true in intel-pt.c. So I assume for the non-pt usage, the no_aux_samples
>> is always false.
>>
>> For non-pt usage,
>> (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples &&
>> !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel)) is equal to
>> (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel))
>>
>> For pt usage, we need to consider the case that
>> evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel) is true or false.
>>
>> If evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel) is true:
>> (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples &&
>> !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel)) is false.
>> It's expected.
>>
>> If evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel) is false:
>> (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples &&
>> !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel)) is equal to
>> (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples)
>> That's the current code logic.
>>
>> So I think the condition "(opts->sample_intr_regs &&
>> !evsel->no_aux_samples && !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel))" looks reasonable.
>>
>> Adrian, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jin Yao
>>
>>> jirka
>>>
