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:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:33:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@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,
        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: <20231003163300.GF1539@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230911154822.2559213-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
 <20231002154535.GB35785@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ce16c6c1-9bdc-35e2-fe85-155bd7edbaa4@linux.intel.com>
 <20231002213752.GB1539@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ed169d4d-76d5-c134-c685-ad3d812028be@linux.intel.com>
 <20231003102733.GC1539@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ZRwuE8LPkwtkjX5C@tassilo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZRwuE8LPkwtkjX5C@tassilo>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 08:06:59AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I'm thinking we should do something like expose branch_counter_nr and
> > branch_counter_width in the sysfs node, and then rename this extra field
> > to counters.
> > 
> > Then userspace can do something like:
> > 
> > 	for (i = 0; i < branch_counter_nr; i++) {
> > 		counter[i] = counters & ((1 << branch_counter_width) - 1);
> > 		counters >>= branch_counter_width;
> > 	}
> > 
> > to extract the actual counter values.
> 
> perf script/report won't necessarily have access to the sysfs
> values if they run on a different system
> 
> It would need extra PT style metadata written by perf record to
> perf.data and read by the user tools.
> 
> Seems complicated. It would be better if it just parsed on its own.

Well, you really don't want to repeat the 4,2 thing in every event, that
seems daft (and a waste of space, because how large do we want those
fields to be etc..).

We don't really have a better place for these sorts of things. And yeah,
the PT thing sets precedent here.