lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf tools: Fix pattern matching for same substring in different pmu type
From
Date
Hi Kan,

On 7/1/2021 3:18 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>
> On 6/30/2021 8:09 AM, Jin Yao wrote:
>> Some different pmu types may have same substring. For example,
>> on Icelake server, we have pmu types "uncore_imc" and
>> "uncore_imc_free_running". Both pmu types have substring "uncore_imc".
>> But the parser would wrongly think they are the same pmu type.
>>
>> We enable an imc event,
>> perf stat -e uncore_imc/event=0xe3/ -a -- sleep 1
>>
>> Perf actually expands the event to:
>> uncore_imc_0/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_1/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_2/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_3/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_4/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_5/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_6/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_7/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_free_running_0/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_free_running_1/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_free_running_3/event=0xe3/
>> uncore_imc_free_running_4/event=0xe3/
>>
>> That's because the "uncore_imc_free_running" matches the
>> pattern "uncore_imc*".
>>
>> Now we check that the last characters of pmu name is
>> '_<digit>'.
>>
>> For pattern "uncore_imc*", "uncore_imc_0" is parsed ok,
>> but "uncore_imc_free_running_0" is failed.
>>
>> Fixes: b2b9d3a3f021 ("perf pmu: Support wildcards on pmu name in dynamic pmu events")
>> Signed-off-by: Jin Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/perf/util/pmu.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>> index 96f5ff9b5440..9ee123d77e6d 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/compiler.h>
>>   #include <linux/string.h>
>>   #include <linux/zalloc.h>
>> +#include <linux/ctype.h>
>>   #include <subcmd/pager.h>
>>   #include <sys/types.h>
>>   #include <errno.h>
>> @@ -741,6 +742,28 @@ struct pmu_events_map *__weak pmu_events_map__find(void)
>>       return perf_pmu__find_map(NULL);
>>   }
>> +static bool perf_pmu__valid_suffix(char *tok, char *pmu_name)
>> +{
>> +    char *p;
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * The pmu_name has substring tok. If the format of
>
> The uncore PMU may have two names, e.g., uncore_cha_Y or uncore_type_X_Y. User can use either name.
> I don't think we can assume that the pmu_name has substring tok. I think we should add a check as
> below.
>
>
> @@ -746,6 +746,8 @@ static bool perf_pmu__valid_suffix(char *tok, char *pmu_name)
>  {
>      char *p;
>
> +    if (strncmp(pmu_name, tok, strlen(tok)))
> +        return false;
>     /*
>      * The pmu_name has substring tok. If the format of
>       * pmu_name is tok or tok_digit, return true.
>

Before calling perf_pmu__valid_suffix(), we either called the fnmatch() or called strstr(), so the
tok must be the substring of pmu_name.

>> +     * pmu_name is tok or tok_digit, return true.
>> +     */
>> +    p = pmu_name + strlen(tok);
>> +    if (*p == 0)
>> +        return true;
>> +
>> +    if (*p != '_')
>> +        return false;
>> +
>> +    ++p;
>> +    if (*p == 0 || !isdigit(*p))
>> +        return false;
>> +
>> +    return true;
>> +}
>> +
>>   bool pmu_uncore_alias_match(const char *pmu_name, const char *name)
>>   {
>>       char *tmp = NULL, *tok, *str;
>> @@ -769,7 +792,7 @@ bool pmu_uncore_alias_match(const char *pmu_name, const char *name)
>>        */
>>       for (; tok; name += strlen(tok), tok = strtok_r(NULL, ",", &tmp)) {
>>           name = strstr(name, tok);
>> -        if (!name) {
>> +        if (!name || !perf_pmu__valid_suffix(tok, (char *)name)) {
>>               res = false;
>>               goto out;
>>           }
>> @@ -1886,5 +1909,8 @@ int perf_pmu__pattern_match(struct perf_pmu *pmu, char *pattern, char *tok)
>>       if (fnmatch(pattern, name, 0))
>>           return -1;
>> +    if (!perf_pmu__valid_suffix(tok, name))
>> +        return -1;
>> +
>
> They are still two functions. I'm wondering if we can merge the two functions to one function, e.g.,
> perf_pmu_match()?
>

Sorry, why do you say they are still two functions? Is it because fnmatch + perf_pmu__valid_suffix?
But as what I explained before, we can't use fnmatch to match the pattern such as "[tok]_[digit]",
we have to use an function to check the last characters for '_' and digits.

Or I still misunderstand for the two functions here?

> So my patch just need to simply do
>      if (!perf_pmu_match(tok, name) && !perf_pmu_match(tok, pmu->alias_name))         return -1;
>

I see your patch is using:
(https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1624990443-168533-7-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com/)

if (!fnmatch(pattern, name, 0) ||
(pmu->alias_name && !fnmatch(pattern, pmu->alias_name, 0))) {

}

So change the lines to:

if (!perf_pmu__match(pattern, name, NULL) ||
(pmu->alias_name && !perf_pmu__match(pattern, pmu->alias_name, NULL))) {

}

int perf_pmu__match(char *pattern, char *name, char *tok)
{
if (fnmatch(pattern, name, 0))
return -1;

if (tok && !perf_pmu__valid_suffix(tok, name))
return -1;

return 0;
}

Is that OK?

Thanks
Jin Yao


> Thanks,
> Kan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-01 03:23    [W:0.244 / U:1.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site