Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:33:50 +0100
From:   "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sesse@google.com>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf intel-pt: Synthesize cycle events
Message-ID: <YjhUjotmo+kYvoNP@google.com>
References: <YiuKAk7SaXP7B7Ee@google.com>
 <ba2c49da-22c5-06ea-e953-82211b953ca8@intel.com>
 <YjBnet2813sEGjZY@google.com>
 <c50bb87d-9fee-c4f9-a350-8729e503e43a@intel.com>
 <YjDUO6bbyfGw/u0C@google.com>
 <52903e58-e74c-5ea0-36b4-277ea3610af4@intel.com>
 <YjGdoGy4Z2UUG9S9@google.com>
 <ef780335-7dc6-3a23-54a8-b6fc9c8a2ed3@intel.com>
 <YjHfGrZovk3N/H0f@google.com>
 <371faf0d-f794-4a2e-0a1c-9d454d7c8b12@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <371faf0d-f794-4a2e-0a1c-9d454d7c8b12@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 11:16:56AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> I had another look at this and it seemed *mostly* OK for me.  One change
> I would make is to subject the cycle period to the logic of the 'A' option
> (approximate IPC).
> 
> So what does the 'A' option do.
> 
> By default, IPC is output only when the exact number of cycles and
> instructions is known for the sample.  Decoding walks instructions
> to reconstruct the control flow, so the exact number of instructions
> is known, but the cycle count (CYC packet) is only produced with
> another packet, so only indirect/async branches or the first
> conditional branch of a TNT packet.

Ah, I hadn't thought of the fact that you only get the first branch per
packet. It's a bit unfortunate for (exact) cycle counts, since I guess
TNT packets can also easily cross functions?

> So the cycle sample function looks like this:
> 
> static int intel_pt_synth_cycle_sample(struct intel_pt_queue *ptq)
>
> [...]
>
> With regard to the results you got with perf report, please try:
> 
> 	perf report --itrace=y0nse --show-total-period --stdio
> 
> and see if the percentages and cycle counts for rarely executed
> functions make more sense.

I already run mostly with 0ns period, so I don't think that's it.
I tried your new version, and it's very similar to your previous one;
there are some small changes (largest is that one function goes from
2.5% to 2.2% or so), but the general gist of it is the same.
I am increasingly leaning towards that my original version is wrong
somehow, though.

By the way, I noticed that synthesized call stacks do not respect
--inline; is that on purpose? The patch seems simple enough (just
a call to add_inlines), although it exposes extreme slowness in libbfd
when run over large binaries, which I'll have to look into.
(10+ ms for each address-to-symbol lookup is rather expensive when you
have 4M samples to churn through!)

/* Steinar */