Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 07:37:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu: > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:22:23PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu: > > > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu: > > > > > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in > > > > > > the > > > > > > @sample_id values. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, this would force people to use sample_id; which in general is a > > > > > good idea, but should we really force that on people? > > > > > > > > Well, if there are more than one sample, we need it, right? If there is > > > > just one, we don't need it, what is different? Am I needing (even more) > > > > coffee? > > > > > > > > /me goes read some code... > > > > > > So the question was, do we do: > > > > > > /* > > > * struct { > > > * struct perf_event_header header; > > > * u64 id; > > > * u64 lost; > > > * struct sample_id sample_id; > > > * }; > > > */ > > > PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLES > > > > > > And have the id thing twice if attr.sample_id && PERF_SAMPLE_ID, but > > > allow decoding if !attr.sample_id. > > > > > > Or force attr.sample_id && PERF_SAMPLE_ID if there's multiple events and > > > do away with the extra id field, like: > > > > > > /* > > > * struct { > > > * struct perf_event_header header; > > > * u64 lost; > > > * struct sample_id sample_id; > > > * }; > > > */ > > > PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLES > > > > > > Should we force the use of sample_id on people? > > > > If we have more than one event we _need_ PERF_SAMPLE_ID, to > > disambiguate, if we don't, then the lost events are just for that one, > > no? > Sure, PERF_SAMPLE_ID is required, but attr::sample_id_all is not is it? > > We can largely get by without using sample_id_all, as we did for a > while. > That said; sample_id_all has been around for more than 4 years and its > recommended for use; but should we mandate it?
Got it now, to have PERF_SAMPLE_ID(ENTIFIER) in records != PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE when multiplexing more than one event on a ring buffer, one would have to set attr.sample_id_all. So, if we have just one event, we don't need sample_id_all (but we will end up using it to have PERF_SAMPLE_TIME, to order metadata events accross CPUs), we also don't need PERF_SAMPLE_ID, and we don't need to have the u64 id in the PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLE, no? - Arnaldo Below is some rambling, thinking out loud, ignore it if you want. The attr::sample_id_all thing was more to be able to have PERF_SAMPLE_TIME, and with that be able to order metadata events together with PERF_SAMPLE_TIME, where we can ask for PERF_SAMPLE_TIME. PERF_SAMPLE_ID(ENTIFIER) is about mapping back a PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE to an event, with this it would also be used to figure out what event is getting samples LOST, so I think the same semantic applies, i.e. if we mux more than one event in a ring buffer, then PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE _and_ PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLES should use the same mechanism _when we need to disambiguate_, right? I.e. those 8 bytes would only be required when we have more than one event. What downsides would we have if we used attr.sample_id_all + PERF_SAMPLE_ID(ENTIFIER) to figure out what event the PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLES refers to? Looking at __perf_event__output_id_sample(kernel)/perf_evsel__parse_id_sample(tools) we only insert/parse: if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_IDENTIFIER) { if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_CPU) { if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_STREAM_ID) { if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_ID) { if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_TIME) { if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_TID) { - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/