LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	acme@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, kjain@linux.ibm.com,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software events
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 12:43:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210830104334.GJ4353@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210826221306.2280066-2-songliubraving@fb.com>

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 03:13:04PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:

> Some data on intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all() and perf_pmu_disable().
> 
> With this patch, when fexit program triggers, intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all is
> used to stop the LBR, and the LBR is stopped after 6 extra branch records
> (see the full trace below). If we replace intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all in
> intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack() with perf_pmu_disable, the LBR is stopped
> after 19 extra branch records. This is still acceptable for systems with 32
> LBR entries. But for systems with fewer entries, all the entries before
> fexit are flushed. Therefore, I suggest we take the short cut and stop LBR
> asap.
> 
> 
> LBR snapshot captured when we use intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all():
> 
> ID: 0 from intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all.part.10+37 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all.part.10+72
> ID: 1 from intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all.part.10+33 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all.part.10+37
> ID: 2 from intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+51 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all.part.10+0
> ID: 3 from __bpf_prog_enter+53 to intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+0
> ID: 4 from __bpf_prog_enter+8 to __bpf_prog_enter+38
> ID: 5 from __brk_limit+473903158 to __bpf_prog_enter+0
> ID: 6 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+22 to __brk_limit+473903139
> ID: 7 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> ID: 8 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> ID: 9 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> 
> 
> LBR snapshot captured when we use perf_pmu_disable():
> 
> ID: 0 from intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+58 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+93
> ID: 1 from intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+54 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+58
> ID: 2 from intel_pmu_disable_all+15 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+0
> ID: 3 from intel_pmu_pebs_disable_all+30 to intel_pmu_disable_all+15
> ID: 4 from intel_pmu_disable_all+10 to intel_pmu_pebs_disable_all+0
> ID: 5 from __intel_pmu_disable_all+49 to intel_pmu_disable_all+10
> ID: 6 from intel_pmu_disable_all+5 to __intel_pmu_disable_all+0
> ID: 7 from x86_pmu_disable+61 to intel_pmu_disable_all+0
> ID: 8 from x86_pmu_disable+38 to x86_pmu_disable+41
> ID: 9 from __x86_indirect_thunk_rax+16 to x86_pmu_disable+0
> ID: 10 from __x86_indirect_thunk_rax+0 to __x86_indirect_thunk_rax+12
> ID: 11 from perf_pmu_disable.part.122+4 to __x86_indirect_thunk_rax+0
> ID: 12 from perf_pmu_disable+23 to perf_pmu_disable.part.122+0
> ID: 13 from intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+45 to perf_pmu_disable+0
> ID: 14 from x86_get_pmu+35 to intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+39
> ID: 15 from intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+34 to x86_get_pmu+0
> ID: 16 from __bpf_prog_enter+53 to intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+0
> ID: 17 from __bpf_prog_enter+8 to __bpf_prog_enter+38
> ID: 18 from __brk_limit+478056502 to __bpf_prog_enter+0
> ID: 19 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+22 to __brk_limit+478056483
> ID: 20 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> ID: 21 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13

Well, if you're willing to do something like:

> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index ac6fd2dabf6a2..a29649e7241cc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -6283,8 +6283,11 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
>  			x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 0;
>  	}
> 
> -	if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr)
> +	if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr) {
>  		pr_cont("%d-deep LBR, ", x86_pmu.lbr_nr);

		if (x86_pmu.disable_all == intel_pmu_disable_all)

> +		static_call_update(perf_snapshot_branch_stack,
> +				   intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack);
> +	}
> 
>  	intel_pmu_check_extra_regs(x86_pmu.extra_regs);
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> index 9e6d6eaeb4cb6..7d4fe1d6e79ff 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> @@ -1862,3 +1862,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(x86_perf_get_lbr);
>  struct event_constraint vlbr_constraint =
>  	__EVENT_CONSTRAINT(INTEL_FIXED_VLBR_EVENT, (1ULL << INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_VLBR),
>  			  FIXED_EVENT_FLAGS, 1, 0, PERF_X86_EVENT_LBR_SELECT);
> +
> +int intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack(struct perf_branch_snapshot *br_snapshot)
> +{
> +	struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> +
> +	intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all();
> +	intel_pmu_lbr_read();
> +	memcpy(br_snapshot->entries, cpuc->lbr_entries,
> +	       sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry) * x86_pmu.lbr_nr);
> +	br_snapshot->nr = x86_pmu.lbr_nr;
> +	intel_pmu_lbr_enable_all(false);
> +	return 0;
> +}

Then the above can assume perfmon > v2 and we can either inline
__intel_pmu_disable_all() or simply do the
wrmsrl(MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL).

One thing that needs checking, intel_pmu_disable_all() also clears
MSR_IA32_PEBS_ENABLE, is that really needed if we just want to inhibit
PMIs ? That is, will the PEBS machinery still trigger PMI if GLOBAL_CTRL
== 0 ?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-08-30 10:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-26 22:13 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: introduce bpf_get_branch_snapshot Song Liu
2021-08-26 22:13 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software events Song Liu
2021-08-30 10:22   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-30 15:25     ` Song Liu
2021-08-30 16:06       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-30 16:36         ` Song Liu
2021-09-01 17:09           ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-30 17:41     ` Song Liu
2021-08-30 18:07       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-01 17:12         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-04 23:01           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-08-30 10:43   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-08-30 16:06     ` Song Liu
2021-08-26 22:13 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: introduce helper bpf_get_branch_snapshot Song Liu
2021-08-27  9:28   ` kernel test robot
2021-08-27 15:10   ` kernel test robot
2021-08-30 10:47     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-26 22:13 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: add test for bpf_get_branch_snapshot Song Liu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210830104334.GJ4353@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=kjain@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software events' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).