> On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Em Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:50:13AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> So sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value) == 24 and it is a per-cpu array, the
>> machine has 24 cpus, why is the kernel thinking it has more and end up
>> zeroing
>> entries after the 24 cores? Some percpu map subtlety (or obvious thing ;-\)
>> I'm
>> missing?
>>
>> Checking lookups into per cpu maps in sample code now...
>
> (gdb) run stat -b 244 -I 1000 -e cycles
> Starting program: /root/bin/perf stat -b 244 -I 1000 -e cycles
> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
> Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
> libbpf: elf: skipping unrecognized data section(9) .eh_frame
> libbpf: elf: skipping relo section(15) .rel.eh_frame for section(9) .eh_frame
>
> Breakpoint 1, bpf_program_profiler__read (evsel=0xce02c0) at
> util/bpf_counter.c:217
> 217 if (list_empty(&evsel->bpf_counter_list))
> (gdb) p num_
> num_cpu num_groups num_leaps num_print_iv
> num_stmts num_transitions num_warnings_issued
> num_cpu_bpf num_ifs num_print_interval num_srcfiles
> num_to_str num_types
> (gdb) p num_cpu
> $1 = 24
> (gdb) p num_cpu_bpf
> $2 = 32
> (gdb)
>
> Humm, why?
>
> But then libbpf and the sample/bpf/ code use it this way:
>
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
> index 8c977f038f497fc1..7dd3d57aba4f620c 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,8 @@ static int bpf_program_profiler__enable(struct evsel
> *evsel)
> static int bpf_program_profiler__read(struct evsel *evsel)
> {
> int num_cpu = evsel__nr_cpus(evsel);
> - struct bpf_perf_event_value values[num_cpu];
> + int num_cpu_bpf = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> + struct bpf_perf_event_value values[num_cpu > num_cpu_bpf ? num_cpu :
> num_cpu_bpf];
> struct bpf_counter *counter;
> int reading_map_fd;
> __u32 key = 0;
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [root@five ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible
> 0-31
> [root@five ~]#
>
> I bet that in your test systems evsel__nr_cpus(evsel) matches
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible and thus you don't see the problem.
Thanks Arnaldo!
Yes, my system have same online and possible CPUs.
Since possible_cpu >= online_cpu, maybe we can use num_cpu_bpf in
bpf_program_profiler__read() without he extra check?
Song
[...]
