Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:24:45 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     eranian@google.com, acme@redhat.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org,
        namhyung@kernel.org, vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com,
        pavel.gerasimov@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V5 1/2] perf/core: Add new branch sample type for
 HW index of raw branch records
Message-ID: <20200120202445.GD14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200116155757.19624-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
 <20200116155757.19624-2-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
 <20200120092300.GK14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <88802724-aa70-23bc-b2c8-a7a34aa3dfe5@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <88802724-aa70-23bc-b2c8-a7a34aa3dfe5@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:50:59AM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/20/2020 4:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 07:57:56AM -0800, kan.liang@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > 
> > >   struct perf_branch_stack {
> > >   	__u64				nr;
> > > +	__u64				hw_idx;
> > >   	struct perf_branch_entry	entries[0];
> > >   };
> > 
> > The above and below order doesn't match.
> > 
> > > @@ -849,7 +853,11 @@ enum perf_event_type {
> > >   	 *	  char                  data[size];}&& PERF_SAMPLE_RAW
> > >   	 *
> > >   	 *	{ u64                   nr;
> > > -	 *        { u64 from, to, flags } lbr[nr];} && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> > > +	 *        { u64 from, to, flags } lbr[nr];
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 *        # only available if PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX is set
> > > +	 *        u64			hw_idx;
> > > +	 *      } && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> > 
> > That wants to be written as:
> > 
> > 		{ u64			nr;
> > 		  { u64 from, to, flags; } entries[nr];
> > 		  { u64	hw_idx; } && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX
> > 		} && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> > 
> > But the big question is; why isn't it:
> > 
> > 		{ u64			nr;
> > 		  { u64	hw_idx; } && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX
> > 		  { u64 from, to, flags; } entries[nr];
> > 		} && PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> > 
> > to match the struct perf_branch_stack order. Having that variable sized
> > entry in the middle just seems weird.
> 
> 
> Usually, new data should be output to the end of a sample.

Because.... you want old tools to read new output?

> However, the entries[0] is sized entry, so I have to put the hw_idx before

entries[0] is only in the C thing, and in C you indeed have to put
hw_idx before.

> entry. It makes the inconsistency. Sorry for the confusion caused.

n/p it's clear now I think.