On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 03:15:16PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 23/03/2021 15:06, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:36:23AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > On 01/08/2020 12:40, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> > > > > v4 changes:
> > > > > - removed acks from patch because it changed a bit
> > > > > with the last fixes:
> > > > > perf metric: Collect referenced metrics in struct
> > > > > metric_ref_node
> > > > > - fixed runtime metrics [Kajol Jain]
> > > > > - increased recursion depth [Paul A. Clarke]
> > > > > - changed patches due to dependencies:
> > > > > perf metric: Collect referenced metrics in struct
> > > > > metric_ref_node
> > > > > perf metric: Add recursion check when processing nested
> > > > > metrics
> > > > > perf metric: Rename struct egroup to metric
> > > > > perf metric: Rename group_list to metric_list
> > > > >
> > > > > Also available in here:
> > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git
> > > > > perf/metric
> > > > I built and ran from the above git branch, and things seem to work.
> > > > Indeed, I was able to apply my changes to exploit the new capabilities
> > > > via modifications to
> > > > tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/powerpc/power9/metrics.json,
> > > > as I posted earlier (and will submit once this set gets merged).
> > > I was just wondering: Does perf subtest 10.3 work ok for you with the
> > > metric
> > > reuse?
> > >
> > > That's "Parsing of PMU event table metrics" subtest.
> > I confess I'm not sure what you are asking. Using the latest mainline
> > (84196390620ac0e5070ae36af84c137c6216a7dc), perf subtest 10.3 does
> > pass for me:
> > --
> > $ ./perf test 10
> > 10: PMU events :
> > 10.1: PMU event table sanity : Ok
> > 10.2: PMU event map aliases : Ok
> > 10.3: Parsing of PMU event table metrics : Ok
> > 10.4: Parsing of PMU event table metrics with fake PMUs : Ok
> > --
> Since commit 8989f5f07605 ("perf stat: Update POWER9 metrics to utilize
> other metrics"), power9 has reused metrics.
>
> And I am finding that subtest 10.3 caused problems when I tried to introduce
> metric reuse on arm64, so I was just asking you to check.
>
> Now I am a bit confused...
I now understand your original request! :-)
The above test was run on a POWER8 system.
I do see failures on a POWER9 system:
--
$ ./perf test 10
10: PMU events :
10.1: PMU event table sanity : Ok
10.2: PMU event map aliases : Ok
10.3: Parsing of PMU event table metrics : Skip
(some metrics failed)
10.4: Parsing of PMU event table metrics with fake PMUs : Ok
$ ./perf test --verbose 10 2>&1 | grep -i '^Parse event failed' | wc -l
112
--
PC
