On 06.07.2020 22:34, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 05:47:54PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>
>> On 06.07.2020 15:34, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:47:22AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Implement handling of 'enable' and 'disable' control commands
>>>> coming from control file descriptor. process_evlist() function
>>>> checks for events on control fds and makes required operations.
>>>> If poll event splits initiated timeout interval then the reminder
>>>> is calculated and still waited in the following poll() syscall.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budan...@linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/perf/builtin-stat.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
>>>> index 9e4288ecf2b8..5021f7286422 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
>>>> @@ -485,6 +485,31 @@ static bool handle_interval(unsigned int interval,
>>>> int *times)
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static bool process_evlist(struct evlist *evlist, unsigned int interval,
>>>> int *times)
>>>> +{
>>>> + bool stop = false;
>>>> + enum evlist_ctl_cmd cmd = EVLIST_CTL_CMD_UNSUPPORTED;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (evlist__ctlfd_process(evlist, &cmd) > 0) {
>>>> + switch (cmd) {
>>>> + case EVLIST_CTL_CMD_ENABLE:
>>>> + pr_info(EVLIST_ENABLED_MSG);
>>>> + stop = handle_interval(interval, times);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case EVLIST_CTL_CMD_DISABLE:
>>>> + stop = handle_interval(interval, times);
>>>
>>> I still don't understand why you call handle_interval in here
>>>
>>> I don't see it being necessary.. you enable events and handle_interval,
>>> wil be called in the next iteration of dispatch_events, why complicate
>>> this function with that?
>>
>> Printing event counts at the moment of command processing lets scripts
>> built on top of stat output to provide more plain and accurate metrics.
>> Otherwise it may get spikes in the beginning of the next time interval
>> because not all counts lay inside [Events enabled, Events disable]
>> If -I interval is large tail event count can be also large. Compare the
>> output below with the output in the cover letter. Either way is possible
>> but the latter one likely complicates the scripts I mentioned above.
>>
>> perf=tools/perf/perf
>> ${perf} stat -D -1 -e cpu-cycles -a -I 1000 \
>> --control fd:${ctl_fd},${ctl_fd_ack} \
>> -- sleep 40 &
>>
>> Events disabled
>> # time counts unit events
>> 1.001100723 <not counted> cpu-cycles
>>
>> 2.003146566 <not counted> cpu-cycles
>>
>> 3.005073317 <not counted> cpu-cycles
>>
>> 4.006337062 <not counted> cpu-cycles
>>
>> Events enabled
>> enable acked(ack)
>> 5.011182000 54,128,692 cpu-cycles <===
>>
>> 6.012300167 3,648,804,827 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 7.013631689 590,438,536 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 8.015558583 406,935,663 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 9.017455505 407,806,862 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 10.019300780 399,351,824 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 11.021180025 404,584,417 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 12.023033661 537,787,981 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 13.024422354 699,395,364 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 14.026325749 397,871,324 cpu-cycles
>>
>> disable acked()
>> Events disabled
>> 15.027857981 396,956,159 cpu-cycles <===
>> 16.029279264 <not counted> cpu-cycles
>>
>> 17.031131311 <not counted> cpu-cycles
>>
>> 18.033010580 <not counted> cpu-cycles
>>
>> 19.034918883 <not counted> cpu-cycles
>>
>> enable acked(ack)
>> Events enabled
>> 20.036758793 183,544,975 cpu-cycles <===
>>
>> 21.038163289 419,054,544 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 22.040108245 413,993,309 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 23.042042365 403,584,493 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 24.043985381 416,512,094 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 25.045925682 401,513,429 cpu-cycles
>>
>> # time counts unit events
>> 26.047822238 461,205,096 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 27.049784263 414,319,162 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 28.051745360 403,706,915 cpu-cycles
>>
>> 29.053674600 416,502,883 cpu-cycles
>>
>> disable acked()
>> Events disabled
>> 30.054750685 414,184,409 cpu-cycles <===
>
> ok, but we could still take handle_interval out of process_evlist
> and the interval process will be more clear for me (with some
> additional comments in the code) ... perhaps something like below?
>
> thanks,
> jirka
>
>
> ---
> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> index 5021f7286422..af83bf6b2db0 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> @@ -485,19 +485,18 @@ static bool handle_interval(unsigned int interval, int
> *times)
> return false;
> }
>
> -static bool process_evlist(struct evlist *evlist, unsigned int interval, int
> *times)
> +static bool process_evlist(struct evlist *evlist)
> {
> - bool stop = false;
> enum evlist_ctl_cmd cmd = EVLIST_CTL_CMD_UNSUPPORTED;
> + bool enabled = false;
>
> if (evlist__ctlfd_process(evlist, &cmd) > 0) {
> switch (cmd) {
> case EVLIST_CTL_CMD_ENABLE:
> pr_info(EVLIST_ENABLED_MSG);
> - stop = handle_interval(interval, times);
> + enabled = true;
> break;
> case EVLIST_CTL_CMD_DISABLE:
> - stop = handle_interval(interval, times);
> pr_info(EVLIST_DISABLED_MSG);
> break;
> case EVLIST_CTL_CMD_ACK:
> @@ -507,7 +506,7 @@ static bool process_evlist(struct evlist *evlist,
> unsigned int interval, int *ti
> }
> }
>
> - return stop;
> + return enabled;
> }
>
> static void enable_counters(void)
> @@ -618,7 +617,8 @@ static int dispatch_events(bool forks, int timeout, int
> interval, int *times)
> stop = handle_interval(interval, times);
> time_to_sleep = sleep_time;
> } else { /* fd revent */
> - stop = process_evlist(evsel_list, interval, times);
> + if (process_evlist(evsel_list))
> + stop = handle_interval(interval, times);
It will call only on enable command and lead to artificial spikes in the
beginning of interval.
May be just take handle_interval() out of process_evlist() and have it similar
to record case?
Alexey
