> On 03-Mar-2021, at 1:40 AM, Liang, Kan <kan.li...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/2/2021 12:08 PM, Thomas Richter wrote:
>> On 3/2/21 4:23 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/2/2021 9:48 AM, Thomas Richter wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/21 3:03 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> + Athira Rajeev
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2021 8:31 AM, Thomas Richter wrote:
>>>>>> Executing perf test 27 fails on s390:
>>>>>> [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -Fv 27
>>>>>> 27: Sample parsing
>>>>>> --- start ---
>>>>>> ---- end ----
>>>>>> Sample parsing: FAILED!
>>>>>> [root@t35lp46 perf]#
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The root cause is
>>>>>> commit c7444297fd3769 ("perf test: Support PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT")
>>>>>> This commit introduced a test case for PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT
>>>>>> but does not adjust non-x86 weak linkage functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The error is in test__sample_parsing() --> do_test()
>>>>>> Function do_test() defines two structures of type struct perf_sample
>>>>>> named
>>>>>> sample and sample_out. The first sets member sample.ins_lat = 117
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Structure sample_out is constructed dynamically using functions
>>>>>> perf_event__synthesize_sample() and evsel__parse_sample().
>>>>>> Both functions have an x86 specific function version which sets member
>>>>>> ins_lat. The weak common functions do not set member ins_lat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think Power supports the instruction latency. As a request from
>>>>> Athira Rajeev, I moved the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT to the X86 specific
>>>>> codes.
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d97fef4f-dd88-4760-885e-9a6161a9b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1612540912-6562-1-git-send-email-kan.li...@linux.intel.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we want to add the ins_lat back in the weak common
>>>>> functions.
Hi Kan Liang,
Yes, presently in powerpc we are not using PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT.
But I am working on a patch set to expose some of the pipeline stalls details
using PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT,
by using the two 16-bit fields of sample weight. I could use the same "ins_lat"
field and then use an arch specific header string while displaying with "perf
report”. I will be sharing an RFC patch on this soon.
But I believe it is good to keep the weak function
"arch_perf_parse_sample_weight" if we want to create different field for
'weight->var2_w' in future.
Thanks
Athira
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please update the perf test and don't apply the
>>>>> PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT for the non-X86 platform?
>>>>
>>>> I used offical linux git tree
>>>> [root@t35lp46 perf]# git tag | fgrep 5.12
>>>> v5.12-rc1
>>>> [root@t35lp46 perf]#
>>>>
>>>> So this change is in the pipe. I do not plan to revert individual patches.
>>>
>>> No, we shouldn't revert the patch.
>>> I mean can you fix the issue in perf test?
>>> Don't test ins_lat or PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT for a non-X86 platform.
>> That would be very ugly code. We would end up in conditional compiles like
>> #ifdef __s390x__
>> #endif
>> and other architectes like ARM/POWER etc come along. This is something I
>> want to avoid.
>
> The ins_lat is a model specific variable. Maybe we should move it to the arch
> specific test.
>
>
>> And this fix only touches perf, not the kernel.
>
> The patch changes the behavior of the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT. The high 32 bit
> will be dropped. It should bring some problems if the high 32 bit contains
> valid information.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Later in function samples_same() both data in variable sample and
>>>>>> sample_out
>>>>>> are compared. The comparison fails because sample.ins_lat is 117
>>>>>> and samples_out.ins_lat is 0, the weak functions never set member
>>>>>> ins_lat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Output after:
>>>>>> [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -Fv 27
>>>>>> 27: Sample parsing
>>>>>> --- start ---
>>>>>> ---- end ----
>>>>>> Sample parsing: Ok
>>>>>> [root@t35lp46 perf]#
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes:
>>>>>> commit c7444297fd3769 ("perf test: Support PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT")
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the regression should start from
>>>>> commit fbefe9c2f87f ("perf tools: Support arch specific
>>>>> PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT processing")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Kan
>>>>
>>>> Kan,
>>>>
>>>> I do not follow you. Your commit c7444297fd3769d10c7ffb52c81d71503b3e268f
>>>> adds this line
>>>>
>>>> @@ -242,6 +245,7 @@ static int do_test(u64 sample_type, u64 sample_regs,
>>>> u64 read_format)
>>>> .cgroup = 114,
>>>> .data_page_size = 115,
>>>> .code_page_size = 116,
>>>> + .ins_lat = 117,
>>>>
>>>> And this assignment 117 breaks the test. As mentioned before, member
>>>> ins_lat is never touched
>>>> by the weak functions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the timeline for the patches.
>>>
>>> 1. The commit c7444297fd3769 and other SPR patches are merged at
>>> 2021-02-08. At that time, I don't think we have this issue. perf test
>>> should work well.
>> Nope, that line above 'ins_lat = 117.' breaks the test. Comment it out and
>> it works well!!!
>
> If you revert the commit fbefe9c2f87f, perf test should work well too.
>
> The root cause of the issue is that the commit fbefe9c2f87f change the
> ins_lat to a model-specific variable, but perf test still verify the variable
> in the generic test.
>
> The below patch moves the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT test into a X86 specific test.
>
> Does it work for you?
>
> ---
> tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h | 1 +
> tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build | 1 +
> tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c | 4 +
> tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c | 4 -
> 5 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> index 6a54b94..0e20f3d 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ int test__rdpmc(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int
> subtest);
> int test__insn_x86(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int subtest);
> int test__intel_pt_pkt_decoder(struct test *test, int subtest);
> int test__bp_modify(struct test *test, int subtest);
> +int test__x86_sample_parsing(struct test *test, int subtest);
>
> #ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT
> struct thread;
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build
> index 36d4f24..28d7933 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build
> @@ -3,5 +3,6 @@ perf-$(CONFIG_DWARF_UNWIND) += dwarf-unwind.o
>
> perf-y += arch-tests.o
> perf-y += rdpmc.o
> +perf-y += sample-parsing.o
> perf-$(CONFIG_AUXTRACE) += insn-x86.o intel-pt-pkt-decoder-test.o
> perf-$(CONFIG_X86_64) += bp-modify.o
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
> b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
> index bc25d72..71aa673 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ struct test arch_tests[] = {
> },
> #endif
> {
> + .desc = "x86 Sample parsing",
> + .func = test__x86_sample_parsing,
> + },
> + {
> .func = NULL,
> },
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c
> b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..28bbc61
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <stdbool.h>
> +#include <inttypes.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +
> +#include "map_symbol.h"
> +#include "branch.h"
> +#include "event.h"
> +#include "evsel.h"
> +#include "debug.h"
> +#include "util/synthetic-events.h"
> +
> +#include "tests/tests.h"
> +#include "arch-tests.h"
> +
> +#define COMP(m) do { \
> + if (s1->m != s2->m) { \
> + pr_debug("Samples differ at '"#m"'\n"); \
> + return false; \
> + } \
> +} while (0)
> +
> +static bool samples_same(const struct perf_sample *s1,
> + const struct perf_sample *s2,
> + u64 type)
> +{
> + if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT)
> + COMP(ins_lat);
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static int do_test(u64 sample_type, u64 read_format)
> +{
> + struct evsel evsel = {
> + .needs_swap = false,
> + .core = {
> + . attr = {
> + .sample_type = sample_type,
> + .read_format = read_format,
> + },
> + },
> + };
> + union perf_event *event;
> + struct perf_sample sample = {
> + .weight = 101,
> + .ins_lat = 102,
> + };
> + struct perf_sample sample_out;
> + size_t i, sz, bufsz;
> + int err, ret = -1;
> +
> + sz = perf_event__sample_event_size(&sample, sample_type, read_format);
> + bufsz = sz + 4096; /* Add a bit for overrun checking */
> + event = malloc(bufsz);
> + if (!event) {
> + pr_debug("malloc failed\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + memset(event, 0xff, bufsz);
> + event->header.type = PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE;
> + event->header.misc = 0;
> + event->header.size = sz;
> +
> + err = perf_event__synthesize_sample(event, sample_type, read_format,
> + &sample);
> + if (err) {
> + pr_debug("%s failed for sample_type %#"PRIx64", error %d\n",
> + "perf_event__synthesize_sample", sample_type, err);
> + goto out_free;
> + }
> +
> + /* The data does not contain 0xff so we use that to check the size */
> + for (i = bufsz; i > 0; i--) {
> + if (*(i - 1 + (u8 *)event) != 0xff)
> + break;
> + }
> + if (i != sz) {
> + pr_debug("Event size mismatch: actual %zu vs expected %zu\n",
> + i, sz);
> + goto out_free;
> + }
> +
> + evsel.sample_size = __evsel__sample_size(sample_type);
> +
> + err = evsel__parse_sample(&evsel, event, &sample_out);
> + if (err) {
> + pr_debug("%s failed for sample_type %#"PRIx64", error %d\n",
> + "evsel__parse_sample", sample_type, err);
> + goto out_free;
> + }
> +
> + if (!samples_same(&sample, &sample_out, sample_type)) {
> + pr_debug("parsing failed for sample_type %#"PRIx64"\n",
> + sample_type);
> + goto out_free;
> + }
> +
> + ret = 0;
> +out_free:
> + free(event);
> + if (ret && read_format)
> + pr_debug("read_format %#"PRIx64"\n", read_format);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * test__x86_sample_parsing - test X86 specific sample parsing
> + *
> + * This function implements a test that synthesizes a sample event, parses it
> + * and then checks that the parsed sample matches the original sample. The
> test
> + * checks sample format bits separately and together. If the test passes %0
> is
> + * returned, otherwise %-1 is returned.
> + *
> + * For now, PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT is the only X86 specific sample type.
> + */
> +int test__x86_sample_parsing(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int subtest
> __maybe_unused)
> +{
> + return do_test(PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT, 0);
> +}
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c
> b/tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c
> index 0dbe3aa..8fd8a4e 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c
> @@ -129,9 +129,6 @@ static bool samples_same(const struct perf_sample *s1,
> if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT)
> COMP(weight);
>
> - if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT)
> - COMP(ins_lat);
> -
> if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC)
> COMP(data_src);
>
> @@ -245,7 +242,6 @@ static int do_test(u64 sample_type, u64 sample_regs, u64
> read_format)
> .cgroup = 114,
> .data_page_size = 115,
> .code_page_size = 116,
> - .ins_lat = 117,
> .aux_sample = {
> .size = sizeof(aux_data),
> .data = (void *)aux_data,
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kan
