Hi Jiri,
On 7/20/2020 5:17 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 09:00:13AM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
Since commit 0a892c1c9472 ("perf record: Add dummy event during system wide
synthesis"),
a dummy event is added to capture mmaps.
But if we run perf-record as,
# perf record -e cycles:p -IXMM0 -a -- sleep 1
Error:
dummy:HG: PMU Hardware doesn't support sampling/overflow-interrupts. Try
'perf stat'
The issue is, if we enable the extended regs (-IXMM0), but the
pmu->capabilities is not set with PERF_PMU_CAP_EXTENDED_REGS, the kernel
will return -EOPNOTSUPP error.
See following code:
/* in kernel/events/core.c */
static int perf_try_init_event(struct pmu *pmu, struct perf_event *event)
{
....
if (!(pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_EXTENDED_REGS) &&
has_extended_regs(event))
ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
....
}
For software dummy event, the PMU should not be set with
PERF_PMU_CAP_EXTENDED_REGS. But unfortunately now, the dummy
event has possibility to be set with PERF_REG_EXTENDED_MASK bit.
In evsel__config, /* tools/perf/util/evsel.c */
if (opts->sample_intr_regs) {
attr->sample_regs_intr = opts->sample_intr_regs;
}
If we use -IXMM0, the attr>sample_regs_intr will be set with
PERF_REG_EXTENDED_MASK bit.
It doesn't make sense to set attr->sample_regs_intr for a
software dummy event.
This patch adds dummy event checking before setting
attr->sample_regs_intr and attr->sample_regs_user.
After:
# ./perf record -e cycles:p -IXMM0 -a -- sleep 1
[ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.413 MB perf.data (45 samples) ]
v2:
---
Rebase to perf/core
Fixes: 0a892c1c9472 ("perf record: Add dummy event during system wide
synthesis")
Signed-off-by: Jin Yao <yao....@linux.intel.com>
---
tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
index 9aa51a65593d..11794d3b7879 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
@@ -1014,12 +1014,14 @@ void evsel__config(struct evsel *evsel, struct
record_opts *opts,
if (callchain && callchain->enabled && !evsel->no_aux_samples)
evsel__config_callchain(evsel, opts, callchain);
- if (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples) {
+ if (opts->sample_intr_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples &&
+ !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel)) {
hum, I thought it'd look something like this:
if (opts->sample_intr_regs && (!evsel->no_aux_samples ||
!evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel))
but I'm not sure how no_aux_samples flag works exactly.. so it might be
correct.. just making sure ;-)
cc-ing Adrian
jirka
no_aux_samples is set to false by default and it's only set to true by pt,
right?
So most of the time, !evsel->no_aux_samples is always true.
if (opts->sample_intr_regs && (!evsel->no_aux_samples ||
!evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel)) {
attr->sample_regs_intr = opts->sample_intr_regs;
evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, REGS_INTR);
}
So even if the evsel is dummy event, the condition check is true. :(
Or maybe I misunderstand anything?
Thanks
Jin Yao
attr->sample_regs_intr = opts->sample_intr_regs;
evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, REGS_INTR);
}
- if (opts->sample_user_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples) {
+ if (opts->sample_user_regs && !evsel->no_aux_samples &&
+ !evsel__is_dummy_event(evsel)) {
attr->sample_regs_user |= opts->sample_user_regs;
evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, REGS_USER);
}
--
2.17.1