Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:42:54 +0400
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@yandex-team.ru>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, paulus@samba.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        dsahern@gmail.com, jolsa@redhat.com, xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
        namhyung@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf trace: add support for pagefault tracing
Message-ID: <20140618174254.GD15620@stfomichev-desktop.yandex.net>
References: <1403103565-6388-1-git-send-email-stfomichev@yandex-team.ru>
 <1403103565-6388-2-git-send-email-stfomichev@yandex-team.ru>
 <20140618154751.GC2702@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140618154751.GC2702@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

> I try, when possible, to not use short options that are used in
> 'strace', so what if we use 'F' here?
Agreed, will change.

> And:
> 
>    trace --pgfaults --pgfaults
> 
> for major and min page faults looks ugly, what if we instead use --pf
> for both, and allow passing min or maj as args?
> 
> I.e.:
> 
> For both major and minor:
> 
>   trace --pf
> 
> for just major page faults:
> 
>   trace --pf maj
Not sure I like it. Currently, when we need to trace page faults its
major faults in 99.9% of cases, we are not interested in minor ones (and
there are thousands of them in a second). So we just do 'perf trace -F'.
If we need minor faults, we are probably interested in all fault events,
so we do -F twice.

With 'trace --pf' we by default hit our 0.01% use case, so we always
need to type 'trace --pf maj'. --pf may be clear from the documentation
standpoint, but I don't like the fact that --pf defaults to all faults.

> > +	int			trace_pgfaults;
> 
> uint8_t should be enough
By using int I state: 'I don't care about underlying type, give me
something to count'. If we use uint8_t it would imply (to me) that
for some reason we care about struct layout, size, endianness, etc.
IOW, I don't think we need to care about +-3 bytes here.

> > -typedef int (*tracepoint_handler)(struct trace *trace, struct perf_evsel *evsel,
> > +typedef int (*tracepoint_handler)(struct trace *trace,
> > +				  union perf_event *event,
> > +				  struct perf_evsel *evsel,
> >  				  struct perf_sample *sample);
> 
> You'll reduce patch size if you leave the first line alone and just add
> the new parameter (event) after evsel.
> 
> It'll become then:
> 
>  typedef int (*tracepoint_handler)(struct trace *trace, struct perf_evsel *evsel,
> +				  union perf_event *event,
>  				  struct perf_sample *sample);
> 
> Then please make one separate patch adding this new parameter, stating
> that it will be used by pagefault tracing, that will come in a followup
> patch in this series.
Agreed, thanks.

> > +static bool valid_dso(struct addr_location *al, struct perf_sample *sample)
> 
> Humm, can't this be reduced to just:
> 
>       return al->map && al->map->dso;
> 
> ? I.e. if the helper returned a dso, it is because the address that was
> looked up is in that dso, no?
> 
> I even guess that if there is al->map, that should be enough to check,
> byt haven't thought this thru nor looked at the relevant sources, in a
> hurry now.
Yes, we don't need to check for ->dso, it's always non-null, I'll remove
the check.
But we do need to check for the range. Because
thread__find_addr_map searches for the closest map using only ->start and
doesn't check if address is within map range (->end).
Maybe we need to fix it in thread__find_addr_map so it always returns valid map?

> Please separate adding page fault tracing recording on a file in a
> separate patch from adding it to live mode, then the changelog message
> can concentrate on examples for each feature.
Ok.

> > -			if (sample.raw_data == NULL) {
> > +			if (evsel->attr.type != PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE &&
> > +			    sample.raw_data == NULL) {
> 
> This looks like a separate patch with relevant associated changelog
> message explaining why this is needed.
No, this belongs here. When we enable page faults, they don't have any
raw data (while syscalls have). So we still want to keep this check for
syscalls but don't want it for fault events.

> > +	if (evsel &&
> > +	    (perf_evsel__init_syscall_tp(evsel, trace__sys_enter) < 0 ||
> > +	    perf_evsel__init_sc_tp_ptr_field(evsel, args))) {
> >  		pr_err("Error during initialize raw_syscalls:sys_enter event\n");
> >  		goto out;
> 
> the above can be ditched, not needed. Care to explain if you think
> otherwise?
This doesn't belong to this patch, but it's required because we can do
'trace --no-syscalls -F' and get only fault events without syscall events;
we don't want to fail here.
Will move to appropriate patch.

> > +	evlist__for_each(session->evlist, evsel) {
> > +		if (evsel->attr.type == PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE &&
> > +		    (evsel->attr.config == PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS_MAJ ||
> > +		     evsel->attr.config == PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS_MIN ||
> > +		     evsel->attr.config == PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS))
> > +			evsel->handler = trace__pgfault;
> 
> the above looks ugly, can't we set the handler when adding the events?
> Or is this just for the perf.data handling case? Have to dig deeper,
> just a first feeling.
It's for perf.data parsing. If you know a better way to do it without
iterating over all events, pls let me know.

> >  	}
> >  
> >  	err = parse_target_str(trace);
> > @@ -2290,6 +2416,8 @@ int cmd_trace(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix __maybe_unused)
> >  			.user_interval = ULLONG_MAX,
> >  			.no_buffering  = true,
> >  			.mmap_pages    = 1024,
> > +			.sample_address	= true,
> > +			.sample_time	= true,
> 
> The above should be made conditional, i.e. if --pf is used?
Yes, fixed, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/