DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=P6UkIFu4poNmPsPvVqNttIK1ndAJ6ktaM+cHETTTsZJX2aNgZjkQjpvHLWWurmAF8Y
         h2PU12UlG8lul4S3zr94ghU8PU0E7ZXJrWaP3ueOiJREwpIeOXrFz96aRpJda8LUtEIf
         2TpUMGEtdFeGyWKr00QDopeHHhoMzkMvnHrEg=
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:43:46 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] perf: Custom contexts
Message-ID: <20110314224344.GA11443@nowhere>
References: <1300130283-10466-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20110314204341.GC9388@ghostprotocols.net>
 <20110314205100.GG6139@nowhere>
 <20110314210315.GC2388@ghostprotocols.net>
 <20110314212050.GH6139@nowhere>
 <20110314215603.GD2388@ghostprotocols.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110314215603.GD2388@ghostprotocols.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3544
Lines: 93

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 06:56:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:20:53PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 06:03:15PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 09:51:02PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:43:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> 
> > > But starter on a starter? Couldn't grok, could you provide an example?
> > 
> > I have no strong example in mind.
> > 
> > But one may want to count instructions when we are in an interrupt and
> > lock A is held.
> 
> Those would be and/or starter/stopper expressions, something like:
> 
> $ perf record -e instructions@(irq:irq_handler_entry(irq=eth0) && lock:lock_acquired(foo_lock))..irq:irq_handler_exit(\1) \
> 	      -e instructions \
> 	netperf
> 
> when all starters before the stopper are valid, we entered a range.

So, if we want to stop when lock is released, we do:

perf record -e instructions@(irq:irq_handler_entry(irq=eth0) && lock:lock_acquired(foo_lock))..lock:lock_release(foo_lock) && irq:irq_handler_exit(\1) \
             -e instructions \
	netperf

Or || for stoppers like you do below? Hmm, I'm confused...

>  
> > Or count instruction when A and B are held.
> 
> Using wildcards that matches just the things we want to make it a bit
> more compact:
> 
> $ perf record -e inst*@(irq:*entry(irq=eth0) && lock:*acquired(A) && \
> 			lock:*acquired(B))..(lock:*release(A) || lock:*release(B)) \
> 	./my_workload
> 
> Parenthesis don't have to be used just for filters :) Just like in C,
> they can be used to express the list of parameters for a function or for
> expressions, etc.

The && make sense. But the || ?

What about:

-e inst*@(lock:*acquire(A)..lock:*release(A))@(lock:*acquire(B)..lock:*release(B))@(irq:*entry(irq=eth0)..irq:*exit(irq=eth0))

That looks to me less confusing.


> 
> > Or count instruction in page faults happening in read() syscall.
> 
> We would need to use 'perf probe' first to insert the entry and exit
> probes on the page fault handling path:
> 
> [root@felicio ~]# perf list *fault* *:*fault*
> 
> List of pre-defined events (to be used in -e):
>   page-faults OR faults                      [Software event]
>   minor-faults                               [Software event]
>   major-faults                               [Software event]
>   alignment-faults                           [Software event]
>   emulation-faults                           [Software event]
> 
>   kvm:kvm_page_fault                         [Tracepoint event]
> [root@felicio ~]#
> 
> But then an expression could be used like I showed above for the
> previous use case you mentioned.

Right.

> 
> > Event range define a state, and anytime you need to profile/trace a
> > desired stacked state, starters on starters can be a good solution,
> > thus even a common practice.
> 
> See above, is that what you're thinking about?

I'm not sure. I can find the meaning of && in your expressions. But not
the meaning of ||. I lack some sleep though :)

But still, I'm all for trying to make a better and smarter way to
express these events, following your suggestions, but I'm not sure I have
the motivation to write a full parser capable of evaluating near C expressions.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/