Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 20:50:03 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc:     "bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "acme@kernel.org" <acme@kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "kjain@linux.ibm.com" <kjain@linux.ibm.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software
 events
Message-ID: <20210910185003.GC5106@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210907202802.3675104-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20210907202802.3675104-2-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <YTs2MpaI7iofckJI@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YTtjeyfJXXiDielu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <96445733-055E-41E3-986B-5E1DC04ADEFA@fb.com>
 <20210910184027.GQ4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210910184027.GQ4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 08:40:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:27:36PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> > This works great and saves 3 entries! We have the following now:
> 
> Yay!
> 
> > ID: 0 from bpf_get_branch_snapshot+18 to intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+0
> 
> is unavoidable, we need to end up in intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack()
> eventually.
> 
> > ID: 1 from __brk_limit+477143934 to bpf_get_branch_snapshot+0
> 
> could be elided by having the JIT emit the call to
> intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack directly, instead of laundering it
> through that helper I suppose.
> 
> > ID: 2 from __brk_limit+477192263 to __brk_limit+477143880  # trampoline 
> > ID: 3 from __bpf_prog_enter+34 to __brk_limit+477192251
> 
> -ENOCLUE
> 
> > ID: 4 from migrate_disable+60 to __bpf_prog_enter+9
> > ID: 5 from __bpf_prog_enter+4 to migrate_disable+0
> 
> I suppose we can reduce that to a single branch if we inline
> migrate_disable() here, that thing unfortunately needs one branch
> itself.

Oooh, since we put local_irq_save/restore() in
intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack(), we no longer need to be after
migrate_disable(). You could go back to placing it earlier!