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:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:24:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
        namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
        eranian@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] perf: Support branch events logging
Message-ID: <20230414192407.GA778423@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230410204352.1098067-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
 <20230410204352.1098067-2-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
 <20230414103832.GD83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1d62b865-5d31-ec36-99e0-785844f79199@linux.intel.com>
 <20230414145324.GB761523@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <803927bb-6f74-5c09-3c18-2fd5f423287b@linux.intel.com>
 <20230414160945.GC761523@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <085fa11e-ea07-c148-1b32-8a09007ee12b@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <085fa11e-ea07-c148-1b32-8a09007ee12b@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 01:53:24PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023-04-14 12:09 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:56:41AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >>> If it were to only support 4, then
> >>> we're in counter scheduling contraint hell again 
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, yes.
> >>
> >>> and we need to somehow
> >>> group all these things together with the LBR event.
> >>
> >> Group will bring many limits for the usage. For example, I was told
> >> there could be someone wants to use it with multiplexing.
> > 
> > You can create two groups, each with an LBR event, no?
> 
> If we put everything in a group, that will make the enabling much
> simpler. I don't think the perf tool needs the order information
> anymore. Because the kernel enables the events one by one in a group.
> The kernel just need to convert the information from the counter order
> to the enabling order and dump to user space.

I never understood the whole order thing. What was it trying to do?

> But if we have two groups with LBR event, the order information is still
> required. Why we still want to group things?

Why would you need that; what is that whole order nonsense about?

{e1, e2, e3, e4}, {e5, e6, e7, e8} with e1 and e5 both having LBR on
just works no?

Since they have LBR and that extra sample flag they all get a 0-3
constraint.

Since both e1 and e5 use LBR, they're mutually exclusive, either e1 or
e5 group runs.