Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:45:35 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Cc:     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, ak@linux.intel.com, eranian@google.com,
        alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com, tinghao.zhang@intel.com,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>,
        Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V3 1/6] perf: Add branch stack extra
Message-ID: <20231002154535.GB35785@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230911154822.2559213-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230911154822.2559213-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 08:48:17AM -0700, kan.liang@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Currently, the additional information of a branch entry is stored in a
> u64 space. With more and more information added, the space is running
> out. For example, the information of occurrences of events will be added
> for each branch.
> 
> Add a new branch sample type, PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EXTRA, to indicate
> whether to support an extra space.
> 
> Two places were suggested to append the extra space.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230802215814.GH231007@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> One place is right after the flags of each branch entry. It changes the
> existing struct perf_branch_entry. In the later Intel-specific
> implementation, two separate spaces have to be created in the
> struct cpu_hw_events to store different branch entry structures. That
> duplicates space.

Well, something like so:

-       struct perf_branch_entry        lbr_entries[MAX_LBR_ENTRIES];
+
+       union {
+               struct perf_branch_entry        lbr_entries[MAX_LBR_ENTRIES];
+               struct perf_branch_entry_ext    lbr_entries_ext[MAX_LBR_ENTRIES];
+       };

would just do... you just have to be really careful to consistently pick
the right one.

Something that might help would be to do make perf_branch_stack::entries
a 'void *' and use:

struct perf_branch_entry_ext *
perf_get_branch_entry(struct perf_sample_data *data, int idx)
{
	if (data->sample_flags & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EXTRA)
		return (struct perf_branch_entry_ext *)data->br_stack->entries + idx;
	
	return (struct perf_branch_entry *)data->br_stack->entries + idx;
}

> The other place is right after the entire struct perf_branch_stack.
> Only adding the new extra space in the struct cpu_hw_event is necessary.
> The disadvantage is that the pointer of the extra space has to be
> recorded. The common interface perf_sample_save_brstack() has to be
> updated as well.

Right.. probably easier.

> The latter requires less space and is much straight forward. It is
> implemented in the patch.

Same amount of space either way around. 'n*x+n*y == n*(x+y)' and all that.

> Also, add a new branch sample type, PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EVT_CNTRS, to
> indicate whether include occurrences of events in branch info. The
> information will be stored in the extra space.

This... why do we need two flags?

Also, I can't find this in the SDM, how wide are these counter deltas?
ISTR they're saturating, but not how wide they are.