Since commit bb30acae4c4d ("perf report: Bail out --mem-mode if mem info
is not available") "perf mem report" and "perf report --mem-mode"
don't report result if the PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit is missed in sample
type.
The commit ffab48705205 ("perf: arm-spe: Fix perf report --mem-mode")
partially fixes the issue. It adds PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit for Arm SPE
event, this allows the perf data file generated by kernel v5.18-rc1 or
later version can be reported properly.
On the other hand, perf tool still fails to be backward compatibility
for a data file recorded by an older version's perf which contains Arm
SPE trace data. This patch is a workaround in reporting phase, when
detects ARM SPE PMU event and without PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit, it will
force to set the bit in the sample type and give a warning info.
Fixes: bb30acae4c4d ("perf report: Bail out --mem-mode if mem info is not available")
Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <[email protected]>
Tested-by: German Gomez <[email protected]>
---
v2: Change event name from "arm_spe_" to "arm_spe";
Add German's test tag.
tools/perf/builtin-report.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-report.c b/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
index 1ad75c7ba074..acb07a4a9b67 100644
--- a/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
+++ b/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
@@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ static int report__setup_sample_type(struct report *rep)
struct perf_session *session = rep->session;
u64 sample_type = evlist__combined_sample_type(session->evlist);
bool is_pipe = perf_data__is_pipe(session->data);
+ struct evsel *evsel;
if (session->itrace_synth_opts->callchain ||
session->itrace_synth_opts->add_callchain ||
@@ -407,6 +408,21 @@ static int report__setup_sample_type(struct report *rep)
}
if (sort__mode == SORT_MODE__MEMORY) {
+ /*
+ * FIXUP: prior to kernel 5.18, Arm SPE missed to set
+ * PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit in sample type. For backward
+ * compatibility, set the bit if it's an old perf data file.
+ */
+ evlist__for_each_entry(session->evlist, evsel) {
+ if (strstr(evsel->name, "arm_spe") &&
+ !(sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC)) {
+ ui__warning("PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit is not set "
+ "for Arm SPE event.\n");
+ evsel->core.attr.sample_type |= PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC;
+ sample_type |= PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC;
+ }
+ }
+
if (!is_pipe && !(sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC)) {
ui__error("Selected --mem-mode but no mem data. "
"Did you call perf record without -d?\n");
--
2.25.1
Em Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 07:01:24PM +0800, Leo Yan escreveu:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 11:29:48AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> > On 14/04/2022 02:27, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 05:23:17PM +0800, Leo Yan escreveu:
> > >> Since commit bb30acae4c4d ("perf report: Bail out --mem-mode if mem info
> > >> is not available") "perf mem report" and "perf report --mem-mode"
> > >> don't report result if the PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit is missed in sample
> > >> type.
> > >>
> > >> The commit ffab48705205 ("perf: arm-spe: Fix perf report --mem-mode")
> > >> partially fixes the issue. It adds PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit for Arm SPE
> > >> event, this allows the perf data file generated by kernel v5.18-rc1 or
> > >> later version can be reported properly.
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, perf tool still fails to be backward compatibility
> > >> for a data file recorded by an older version's perf which contains Arm
> > >> SPE trace data. This patch is a workaround in reporting phase, when
> > >> detects ARM SPE PMU event and without PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit, it will
> > >> force to set the bit in the sample type and give a warning info.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: bb30acae4c4d ("perf report: Bail out --mem-mode if mem info is not available")
> > >> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <[email protected]>
> > >> Tested-by: German Gomez <[email protected]>
> > >> ---
> > >> v2: Change event name from "arm_spe_" to "arm_spe";
> > >> Add German's test tag.
> > >
> > > Tentatively applied, would be great to have James' and Ravi's
> > > Acked-by/Reviewed-by, which I'll add before pushing this out if provided
> > > in time.
> > >
> > > - Arnaldo
> > >
> > >> tools/perf/builtin-report.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> > >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-report.c b/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
> > >> index 1ad75c7ba074..acb07a4a9b67 100644
> > >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
> > >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
> > >> @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ static int report__setup_sample_type(struct report *rep)
> > >> struct perf_session *session = rep->session;
> > >> u64 sample_type = evlist__combined_sample_type(session->evlist);
> > >> bool is_pipe = perf_data__is_pipe(session->data);
> > >> + struct evsel *evsel;
> > >>
> > >> if (session->itrace_synth_opts->callchain ||
> > >> session->itrace_synth_opts->add_callchain ||
> > >> @@ -407,6 +408,21 @@ static int report__setup_sample_type(struct report *rep)
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> if (sort__mode == SORT_MODE__MEMORY) {
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * FIXUP: prior to kernel 5.18, Arm SPE missed to set
> > >> + * PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit in sample type. For backward
> > >> + * compatibility, set the bit if it's an old perf data file.
> > >> + */
> > >> + evlist__for_each_entry(session->evlist, evsel) {
> > >> + if (strstr(evsel->name, "arm_spe") &&
> > >> + !(sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC)) {
> > >> + ui__warning("PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit is not set "
> > >> + "for Arm SPE event.\n");
> >
> > Looks ok to me. Personally I would remove the warning, otherwise people are going to start
> > thinking that they need to do something about it or something bad has happened.
> >
> > But because we've fixed it up there shouldn't really need to be a warning or any action.
>
> Understand. The warning is not bad for developers but it might
> introduce confusion for users, and if we really want to check the sample
> type then we can use 'perf evlist' command, so it's not very useful for
> the warning.
>
> I will remove the warning and resend a new patch.
Waiting then
> > I don't feel too strongly about this though, so I will leave it up to Leo to make the
> > final decision:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: James Clark <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks a lot for reviewing.
> Leo
--
- Arnaldo
Em Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 11:29:48AM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
>
>
> On 14/04/2022 02:27, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 05:23:17PM +0800, Leo Yan escreveu:
> >> Since commit bb30acae4c4d ("perf report: Bail out --mem-mode if mem info
> >> is not available") "perf mem report" and "perf report --mem-mode"
> >> don't report result if the PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit is missed in sample
> >> type.
> >>
> >> The commit ffab48705205 ("perf: arm-spe: Fix perf report --mem-mode")
> >> partially fixes the issue. It adds PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit for Arm SPE
> >> event, this allows the perf data file generated by kernel v5.18-rc1 or
> >> later version can be reported properly.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, perf tool still fails to be backward compatibility
> >> for a data file recorded by an older version's perf which contains Arm
> >> SPE trace data. This patch is a workaround in reporting phase, when
> >> detects ARM SPE PMU event and without PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit, it will
> >> force to set the bit in the sample type and give a warning info.
> >>
> >> Fixes: bb30acae4c4d ("perf report: Bail out --mem-mode if mem info is not available")
> >> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <[email protected]>
> >> Tested-by: German Gomez <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> v2: Change event name from "arm_spe_" to "arm_spe";
> >> Add German's test tag.
> >
> > Tentatively applied, would be great to have James' and Ravi's
> > Acked-by/Reviewed-by, which I'll add before pushing this out if provided
> > in time.
> >
> > - Arnaldo
> >
> >> tools/perf/builtin-report.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-report.c b/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
> >> index 1ad75c7ba074..acb07a4a9b67 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-report.c
> >> @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ static int report__setup_sample_type(struct report *rep)
> >> struct perf_session *session = rep->session;
> >> u64 sample_type = evlist__combined_sample_type(session->evlist);
> >> bool is_pipe = perf_data__is_pipe(session->data);
> >> + struct evsel *evsel;
> >>
> >> if (session->itrace_synth_opts->callchain ||
> >> session->itrace_synth_opts->add_callchain ||
> >> @@ -407,6 +408,21 @@ static int report__setup_sample_type(struct report *rep)
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (sort__mode == SORT_MODE__MEMORY) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * FIXUP: prior to kernel 5.18, Arm SPE missed to set
> >> + * PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit in sample type. For backward
> >> + * compatibility, set the bit if it's an old perf data file.
> >> + */
> >> + evlist__for_each_entry(session->evlist, evsel) {
> >> + if (strstr(evsel->name, "arm_spe") &&
> >> + !(sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC)) {
> >> + ui__warning("PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC bit is not set "
> >> + "for Arm SPE event.\n");
>
> Looks ok to me. Personally I would remove the warning, otherwise people are going to start
> thinking that they need to do something about it or something bad has happened.
>
> But because we've fixed it up there shouldn't really need to be a warning or any action.
>
> I don't feel too strongly about this though, so I will leave it up to Leo to make the
> final decision:
>
> Reviewed-by: James Clark <[email protected]>
Thanks, collecting your review,
- Arnaldo