lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf tools: fix: Force backward ring buffer mapped readonly
From
Date


On 2017/10/12 20:56, Liang, Kan wrote:
>> On 2017/10/11 21:16, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>> perf record's --overwrite option doesn't work as we expect.
>>>> For example:
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>>> In the above example we get same records from the backward ring
>>>> buffer all the time. Overwriting is not triggered.
>>>>
>>>> This commit maps backward ring buffers readonly, make it overwritable.
>>>> It is safe because we assume backward ring buffer always overwritable
>>>> in other part of code.
>>>>
>>>> After applying this patch:
>>>>
>>>> $ ~/linux/tools/perf$ sudo ./perf record -m 4 -e raw_syscalls:*
>>>> -g -- overwrite \
>>>> --switch-output=1s --tail-synthesize dd
>>>> if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
>>>> Cc: Liang Kan <kan.liang@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/perf/util/evlist.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
>>>> index c6c891e..a86b0d2 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
>>>> @@ -799,12 +799,14 @@ perf_evlist__should_poll(struct perf_evlist
>>>> *evlist __maybe_unused,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int perf_evlist__mmap_per_evsel(struct perf_evlist *evlist, int idx,
>>>> - struct mmap_params *mp, int cpu_idx,
>>>> + struct mmap_params *_mp, int cpu_idx,
>>>> int thread, int *_output, int
>>>> *_output_backward)
>>>> {
>>>> struct perf_evsel *evsel;
>>>> int revent;
>>>> int evlist_cpu = cpu_map__cpu(evlist->cpus, cpu_idx);
>>>> + struct mmap_params *mp = _mp;
>>>> + struct mmap_params backward_mp;
>>>>
>>>> evlist__for_each_entry(evlist, evsel) {
>>>> struct perf_mmap *maps = evlist->mmap; @@ -815,6 +817,9
>> @@ static
>>>> int perf_evlist__mmap_per_evsel(struct
>>>> perf_evlist *evlist, int idx,
>>>> if (evsel->attr.write_backward) {
>>>> output = _output_backward;
>>>> maps = evlist->backward_mmap;
>>>> + backward_mp = *mp;
>>>> + backward_mp.prot &= ~PROT_WRITE;
>>>> + mp = &backward_mp;
>>>>
>>>> if (!maps) {
>>>> maps = perf_evlist__alloc_mmap(evlist);
>>> So it's trying to support per-event overwrite.
>>> How about the global --overwrite option?
>> Not only the per-event overwrite. See the example above. The overall --
>> overwrite option is also respected. In perf_evsel__config, per-event evsel
>> 'backward' setting is set based on overall '--overwrite' and per-event
>> '/overwrite/' setting.
> But how about evlist->overwrite? I think it still keeps the wrong setting.
> The overwrite is implicitly applied. Some settings are inconsistent.
>
> Is there any drawback if you use opts->overwrite for perf_evlist__mmap_ex?

We will always face such inconsistency, because we have
an /no-overwrite/ option which can be set per-evsel.
Setting evlist->overwrite won't make things more consistent,
because in a evlist, different evsel can have different
overwrite setting. A simple solution is making evlist
non-overwrite by default, and watch all overwrite evsels
a special cases. Then we have only 2 cases to consider:

1. overwrite evsel in a non-overwrite evlist.
2. non-overwrite evsel in a non-overwrite evlist.

If we reset evlist->overwrite according to --overwrite, we
will have 4 cases to consider:

1. overwrite evsel in a overwrite evlist.
2. non-overwrite evsel in a overwrite evlist.
3. overwrite evsel in a non-overwrite evlist.
4. non-overwrite evsel in a non-overwrite evlist.

The real problem is: there's 'overwrite' and 'backward'
concepts in our code, but these two concepts are neither
independent nor identical.

Thank you.


> Thanks,
> Kan
>>> I think we should use opts->overwrite to replace the hard code 'false'
>>> for perf_evlist__mmap_ex as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kan


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-12 16:37    [W:0.054 / U:1.928 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site