[RFC/PATCHSET,0/9] perf record: Implement BPF sample filter (v4)

  Hello,

There have been requests for more sophisticated perf event sample
filtering based on the sample data.  Recently the kernel added BPF
programs can access perf sample data and this is the userspace part
to enable such a filtering.

This still has some rough edges and needs more improvements.  But
I'd like to share the current work and get some feedback for the
directions and idea for further improvements.

v4 changes)
 * add __maybe_unused for !BUILD_BPF_SKEL  (Adrian)
 * warn user if it misses sample flags  (Adrian)
 * improve error message for invalid input
 * add Acked-by from Jiri

v3 changes)
 * fix build error on old kernels/vmlinux  (Arnaldo)
 * move the logic to evlist__apply_filters  (Jiri)
 * improve error message for bad input

v2 changes)
 * fix build error with the misc field  (Jiri)
 * add a destructor for filter expr  (Ian)
 * remove 'bpf:' prefix  (Arnaldo)
 * add '||' operator

The required kernel changes are now in the mainline tree (for v6.3).
perf record has --filter option to set filters on the last specified
event in the command line.  It worked only for tracepoints and Intel
PT events so far.  This patchset extends it to use BPF in order to
enable the general sample filters for any events.

A new filter expression parser was added (using flex/bison) to process
the filter string.  Right now, it only accepts very simple expressions
separated by comma.  I'd like to keep the filter expression as simple
as possible.

It requires samples satisfy all the filter expressions otherwise it'd
drop the sample.  IOW filter expressions are connected with logical AND
operations unless they used "||" explicitly.  So if user has something
like 'A, B || C, D', then BOTH A and D should be true AND either B or C
also needs to be true.

Essentially the BPF filter expression is:

  <term> <operator> <value> (("," | "||") <term> <operator> <value>)*

The <term> can be one of:
  ip, id, tid, pid, cpu, time, addr, period, txn, weight, phys_addr,
  code_pgsz, data_pgsz, weight1, weight2, weight3, ins_lat, retire_lat,
  p_stage_cyc, mem_op, mem_lvl, mem_snoop, mem_remote, mem_lock,
  mem_dtlb, mem_blk, mem_hops

The <operator> can be one of:
  ==, !=, >, >=, <, <=, &

The <value> can be one of:
  <number> (for any term)
  na, load, store, pfetch, exec (for mem_op)
  l1, l2, l3, l4, cxl, io, any_cache, lfb, ram, pmem (for mem_lvl)
  na, none, hit, miss, hitm, fwd, peer (for mem_snoop)
  remote (for mem_remote)
  na, locked (for mem_locked)
  na, l1_hit, l1_miss, l2_hit, l2_miss, any_hit, any_miss, walk, fault (for mem_dtlb)
  na, by_data, by_addr (for mem_blk)
  hops0, hops1, hops2, hops3 (for mem_hops)

I plan to improve it with range expressions like for ip or addr and it
should support symbols like the existing addr-filters.  Also cgroup
should understand and convert cgroup names to IDs.

Let's take a look at some examples.  The following is to profile a user
program on the command line.  When the frequency mode is used, it starts
with a very small period (i.e. 1) and adjust it on every interrupt (NMI)
to catch up the given frequency.

  $ ./perf record -- ./perf test -w noploop
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.263 MB perf.data (4006 samples) ]

  $ ./perf script -F pid,period,event,ip,sym | head
  36695          1 cycles:  ffffffffbab12ddd perf_event_exec
  36695          1 cycles:  ffffffffbab12ddd perf_event_exec
  36695          5 cycles:  ffffffffbab12ddd perf_event_exec
  36695         46 cycles:  ffffffffbab12de5 perf_event_exec
  36695       1163 cycles:  ffffffffba80a0eb x86_pmu_disable_all
  36695       1304 cycles:  ffffffffbaa19507 __hrtimer_get_next_event
  36695       8143 cycles:  ffffffffbaa186f9 __run_timers
  36695      69040 cycles:  ffffffffbaa0c393 rcu_segcblist_ready_cbs
  36695     355117 cycles:            4b0da4 noploop
  36695     321861 cycles:            4b0da4 noploop

If you want to skip the first few samples that have small periods, you
can do like this (note it requires root due to BPF).

  $ sudo ./perf record -e cycles --filter 'period > 10000' -- ./perf test -w noploop
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.262 MB perf.data (3990 samples) ]

  $ sudo ./perf script -F pid,period,event,ip,sym | head
  39524      58253 cycles:  ffffffffba97dac0 update_rq_clock
  39524     232657 cycles:            4b0da2 noploop
  39524     210981 cycles:            4b0da2 noploop
  39524     282882 cycles:            4b0da4 noploop
  39524     392180 cycles:            4b0da4 noploop
  39524     456058 cycles:            4b0da4 noploop
  39524     415196 cycles:            4b0da2 noploop
  39524     462721 cycles:            4b0da4 noploop
  39524     526272 cycles:            4b0da2 noploop
  39524     565569 cycles:            4b0da4 noploop

Maybe more useful example is when it deals with precise memory events.
On AMD processors with IBS, you can filter only memory load with L1
dTLB is missed like below.

  $ sudo ./perf record -ad -e ibs_op//p \
  > --filter 'mem_op == load, mem_dtlb > l1_hit' sleep 1
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 1.338 MB perf.data (15 samples) ]

  $ sudo ./perf script -F data_src | head
          51080242 |OP LOAD|LVL LFB/MAB hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 miss|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          49080142 |OP LOAD|LVL L1 hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 hit|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          51080242 |OP LOAD|LVL LFB/MAB hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 miss|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          51080242 |OP LOAD|LVL LFB/MAB hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 miss|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          51088842 |OP LOAD|LVL L3 or Remote Cache (1 hop) hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 miss|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          51080242 |OP LOAD|LVL LFB/MAB hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 miss|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          51080242 |OP LOAD|LVL LFB/MAB hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 miss|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          51080242 |OP LOAD|LVL LFB/MAB hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 miss|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          49080442 |OP LOAD|LVL L2 hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 hit|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A
          51080242 |OP LOAD|LVL LFB/MAB hit|SNP N/A|TLB L2 miss|LCK N/A|BLK  N/A

You can also check the number of dropped samples in LOST_SAMPLES events
using perf report --stat command.

  $ sudo ./perf report --stat

  Aggregated stats:
             TOTAL events:      16066
              MMAP events:         22  ( 0.1%)
              COMM events:       4166  (25.9%)
              EXIT events:          1  ( 0.0%)
          THROTTLE events:        816  ( 5.1%)
        UNTHROTTLE events:        613  ( 3.8%)
              FORK events:       4165  (25.9%)
            SAMPLE events:         15  ( 0.1%)
             MMAP2 events:       6133  (38.2%)
      LOST_SAMPLES events:          1  ( 0.0%)
           KSYMBOL events:         69  ( 0.4%)
         BPF_EVENT events:         57  ( 0.4%)
    FINISHED_ROUND events:          3  ( 0.0%)
          ID_INDEX events:          1  ( 0.0%)
        THREAD_MAP events:          1  ( 0.0%)
           CPU_MAP events:          1  ( 0.0%)
         TIME_CONV events:          1  ( 0.0%)
     FINISHED_INIT events:          1  ( 0.0%)
  ibs_op//p stats:
            SAMPLE events:         15
      LOST_SAMPLES events:       3991

Note that the total aggregated stats show 1 LOST_SAMPLES event but
per event stats show 3991 events because it's the actual number of
dropped samples while the aggregated stats has the number of record.
Maybe we need to change the per-event stats to 'LOST_SAMPLES count'
to avoid the confusion.

The code is available at 'perf/bpf-filter-v4' branch in my tree.

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/namhyung/linux-perf.git

Any feedback is welcome.

Thanks,
Namhyung

Namhyung Kim (9):
  perf bpf filter: Introduce basic BPF filter expression
  perf bpf filter: Implement event sample filtering
  perf record: Add BPF event filter support
  perf record: Record dropped sample count
  perf bpf filter: Add 'pid' sample data support
  perf bpf filter: Add more weight sample data support
  perf bpf filter: Add data_src sample data support
  perf bpf filter: Add logical OR operator
  perf bpf filter: Show warning for missing sample flags

 tools/lib/perf/include/perf/event.h          |   2 +
 tools/perf/Documentation/perf-record.txt     |  15 +-
 tools/perf/Makefile.perf                     |   2 +-
 tools/perf/builtin-record.c                  |  40 ++--
 tools/perf/util/Build                        |  16 ++
 tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c                 | 197 +++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.h                 |  49 +++++
 tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.l                 | 159 +++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.y                 |  78 ++++++++
 tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c                |   3 +-
 tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample-filter.h     |  27 +++
 tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c | 172 ++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/util/evlist.c                     |  25 ++-
 tools/perf/util/evsel.c                      |   2 +
 tools/perf/util/evsel.h                      |   7 +-
 tools/perf/util/parse-events.c               |   8 +-
 tools/perf/util/session.c                    |   3 +-
 17 files changed, 769 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.h
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.l
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.y
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample-filter.h
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c


base-commit: 0ec73817ca21f6ed4f2cca44b63e81a688c0ba0b
  

Hi Namhyung,

Sorry, I should have tried earlier prototypes but missed it.

> Maybe more useful example is when it deals with precise memory events.
> On AMD processors with IBS, you can filter only memory load with L1
> dTLB is missed like below.
> 
>   $ sudo ./perf record -ad -e ibs_op//p \
>   > --filter 'mem_op == load, mem_dtlb > l1_hit' sleep 1
>   [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
>   [ perf record: Captured and wrote 1.338 MB perf.data (15 samples) ]

On my zen4 machine:

  $ sudo ./perf record -d -e ibs_op//p --filter 'mem_op == load' -c 100000 ~/test
  [ perf record: Woken up 6 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 1.436 MB perf.data (30966 samples) ]

  $ sudo ./perf mem report -F sample,mem --stdio
  #      Samples  Memory access
  # ............  ........................
           30325  L1 hit
             477  Local RAM hit
              89  L2 hit
              75  L3 hit

This looks good because IBS hw can't filter specific type of instruction
and thus unfiltered data will contain "NA" types of memory accesses, which
is absent here. So mem_op == load filter seems to be working.

However, if I add "mem_lvl == l1" (or l2 / ram) in the filter, I see mostly
all samples are getting lost:

  $ sudo ./perf record -d -e ibs_op//p --filter 'mem_op == load, mem_lvl == l1' -c 100000 ~/test
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.019 MB perf.data ]

  $ sudo ./perf report --stat | grep SAMPLE
    LOST_SAMPLES events:          1  ( 0.8%)
    LOST_SAMPLES events:     136332

What am I missing?

2nd observation, invalid expressions like 'mem_op == load, mem_dtlb == l1'
are not failing, instead recording misleading data:

  $ sudo ./perf record -d -e ibs_op//p --filter 'mem_op == load, mem_dtlb == l1' -c 100000 ~/test
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.047 MB perf.data (614 samples) ]

  $ sudo ./perf script -F data_src | grep "TLB N/A" | wc -l
  614

Thanks,
Ravi
  

> It requires samples satisfy all the filter expressions otherwise it'd
> drop the sample.  IOW filter expressions are connected with logical AND
> operations unless they used "||" explicitly.  So if user has something
> like 'A, B || C, D', then BOTH A and D should be true AND either B or C
> also needs to be true.
> 
> Essentially the BPF filter expression is:
> 
>   <term> <operator> <value> (("," | "||") <term> <operator> <value>)*
> 
> The <term> can be one of:
>   ip, id, tid, pid, cpu, time, addr, period, txn, weight, phys_addr,
>   code_pgsz, data_pgsz, weight1, weight2, weight3, ins_lat, retire_lat,
>   p_stage_cyc, mem_op, mem_lvl, mem_snoop, mem_remote, mem_lock,
>   mem_dtlb, mem_blk, mem_hops
> 
> The <operator> can be one of:
>   ==, !=, >, >=, <, <=, &
> 
> The <value> can be one of:
>   <number> (for any term)
>   na, load, store, pfetch, exec (for mem_op)
>   l1, l2, l3, l4, cxl, io, any_cache, lfb, ram, pmem (for mem_lvl)
>   na, none, hit, miss, hitm, fwd, peer (for mem_snoop)
>   remote (for mem_remote)
>   na, locked (for mem_locked)
>   na, l1_hit, l1_miss, l2_hit, l2_miss, any_hit, any_miss, walk, fault (for mem_dtlb)
>   na, by_data, by_addr (for mem_blk)
>   hops0, hops1, hops2, hops3 (for mem_hops)

I think this and few examples should be added in perf-record man page.

Thanks,
Ravi
  

Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:28:03PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> > It requires samples satisfy all the filter expressions otherwise it'd
> > drop the sample.  IOW filter expressions are connected with logical AND
> > operations unless they used "||" explicitly.  So if user has something
> > like 'A, B || C, D', then BOTH A and D should be true AND either B or C
> > also needs to be true.
> > 
> > Essentially the BPF filter expression is:
> > 
> >   <term> <operator> <value> (("," | "||") <term> <operator> <value>)*
> > 
> > The <term> can be one of:
> >   ip, id, tid, pid, cpu, time, addr, period, txn, weight, phys_addr,
> >   code_pgsz, data_pgsz, weight1, weight2, weight3, ins_lat, retire_lat,
> >   p_stage_cyc, mem_op, mem_lvl, mem_snoop, mem_remote, mem_lock,
> >   mem_dtlb, mem_blk, mem_hops
> > 
> > The <operator> can be one of:
> >   ==, !=, >, >=, <, <=, &
> > 
> > The <value> can be one of:
> >   <number> (for any term)
> >   na, load, store, pfetch, exec (for mem_op)
> >   l1, l2, l3, l4, cxl, io, any_cache, lfb, ram, pmem (for mem_lvl)
> >   na, none, hit, miss, hitm, fwd, peer (for mem_snoop)
> >   remote (for mem_remote)
> >   na, locked (for mem_locked)
> >   na, l1_hit, l1_miss, l2_hit, l2_miss, any_hit, any_miss, walk, fault (for mem_dtlb)
> >   na, by_data, by_addr (for mem_blk)
> >   hops0, hops1, hops2, hops3 (for mem_hops)
> 
> I think this and few examples should be added in perf-record man page.

Agreed, and even mentioning cases where it overcome problems like the
filtering you mentioned for AMD systems.

- Arnaldo
  

Hi Ravi,

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:10:28PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Hi Namhyung,
> 
> Sorry, I should have tried earlier prototypes but missed it.

No worries and thanks for your review!

> 
> > Maybe more useful example is when it deals with precise memory events.
> > On AMD processors with IBS, you can filter only memory load with L1
> > dTLB is missed like below.
> > 
> >   $ sudo ./perf record -ad -e ibs_op//p \
> >   > --filter 'mem_op == load, mem_dtlb > l1_hit' sleep 1
> >   [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> >   [ perf record: Captured and wrote 1.338 MB perf.data (15 samples) ]
> 
> On my zen4 machine:
> 
>   $ sudo ./perf record -d -e ibs_op//p --filter 'mem_op == load' -c 100000 ~/test
>   [ perf record: Woken up 6 times to write data ]
>   [ perf record: Captured and wrote 1.436 MB perf.data (30966 samples) ]
> 
>   $ sudo ./perf mem report -F sample,mem --stdio
>   #      Samples  Memory access
>   # ............  ........................
>            30325  L1 hit
>              477  Local RAM hit
>               89  L2 hit
>               75  L3 hit
> 
> This looks good because IBS hw can't filter specific type of instruction
> and thus unfiltered data will contain "NA" types of memory accesses, which
> is absent here. So mem_op == load filter seems to be working.

Good!

> 
> However, if I add "mem_lvl == l1" (or l2 / ram) in the filter, I see mostly
> all samples are getting lost:
> 
>   $ sudo ./perf record -d -e ibs_op//p --filter 'mem_op == load, mem_lvl == l1' -c 100000 ~/test
>   [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
>   [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.019 MB perf.data ]
> 
>   $ sudo ./perf report --stat | grep SAMPLE
>     LOST_SAMPLES events:          1  ( 0.8%)
>     LOST_SAMPLES events:     136332
> 
> What am I missing?

It seems IBS PMU doesn't set the mem_lvlnum field in the data source.
As I said in the patch 7, 'mem_lvl' actually uses mem_lvlnum fields
instead of mem_lvl because it's preferred according to the comment in
the UAPI header.

/*
 * PERF_MEM_LVL_* namespace being depricated to some extent in the
 * favour of newer composite PERF_MEM_{LVLNUM_,REMOTE_,SNOOPX_} fields.
 * Supporting this namespace inorder to not break defined ABIs.
 *
 * memory hierarchy (memory level, hit or miss)
 */

I'll post a patch to set it separately.

> 
> 2nd observation, invalid expressions like 'mem_op == load, mem_dtlb == l1'
> are not failing, instead recording misleading data:
> 
>   $ sudo ./perf record -d -e ibs_op//p --filter 'mem_op == load, mem_dtlb == l1' -c 100000 ~/test
>   [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
>   [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.047 MB perf.data (614 samples) ]
> 
>   $ sudo ./perf script -F data_src | grep "TLB N/A" | wc -l
>   614
 
Good point, that's the limitation in the current implementation.
I think it needs to keep the target sample field along with the
constant so that it can detect unintended uses.  Let's me think
about it more.

Thanks,
Namhyung
  

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:04:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:28:03PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> > > It requires samples satisfy all the filter expressions otherwise it'd
> > > drop the sample.  IOW filter expressions are connected with logical AND
> > > operations unless they used "||" explicitly.  So if user has something
> > > like 'A, B || C, D', then BOTH A and D should be true AND either B or C
> > > also needs to be true.
> > > 
> > > Essentially the BPF filter expression is:
> > > 
> > >   <term> <operator> <value> (("," | "||") <term> <operator> <value>)*
> > > 
> > > The <term> can be one of:
> > >   ip, id, tid, pid, cpu, time, addr, period, txn, weight, phys_addr,
> > >   code_pgsz, data_pgsz, weight1, weight2, weight3, ins_lat, retire_lat,
> > >   p_stage_cyc, mem_op, mem_lvl, mem_snoop, mem_remote, mem_lock,
> > >   mem_dtlb, mem_blk, mem_hops
> > > 
> > > The <operator> can be one of:
> > >   ==, !=, >, >=, <, <=, &
> > > 
> > > The <value> can be one of:
> > >   <number> (for any term)
> > >   na, load, store, pfetch, exec (for mem_op)
> > >   l1, l2, l3, l4, cxl, io, any_cache, lfb, ram, pmem (for mem_lvl)
> > >   na, none, hit, miss, hitm, fwd, peer (for mem_snoop)
> > >   remote (for mem_remote)
> > >   na, locked (for mem_locked)
> > >   na, l1_hit, l1_miss, l2_hit, l2_miss, any_hit, any_miss, walk, fault (for mem_dtlb)
> > >   na, by_data, by_addr (for mem_blk)
> > >   hops0, hops1, hops2, hops3 (for mem_hops)
> > 
> > I think this and few examples should be added in perf-record man page.
> 
> Agreed, and even mentioning cases where it overcome problems like the
> filtering you mentioned for AMD systems.

Sure, will add them.

Thanks,
Namhyung
  

>> However, if I add "mem_lvl == l1" (or l2 / ram) in the filter, I see mostly
>> all samples are getting lost:
>>
>>   $ sudo ./perf record -d -e ibs_op//p --filter 'mem_op == load, mem_lvl == l1' -c 100000 ~/test
>>   [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
>>   [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.019 MB perf.data ]
>>
>>   $ sudo ./perf report --stat | grep SAMPLE
>>     LOST_SAMPLES events:          1  ( 0.8%)
>>     LOST_SAMPLES events:     136332
>>
>> What am I missing?
> 
> It seems IBS PMU doesn't set the mem_lvlnum field in the data source.
> As I said in the patch 7, 'mem_lvl' actually uses mem_lvlnum fields
> instead of mem_lvl because it's preferred according to the comment in
> the UAPI header.
> 
> /*
>  * PERF_MEM_LVL_* namespace being depricated to some extent in the
>  * favour of newer composite PERF_MEM_{LVLNUM_,REMOTE_,SNOOPX_} fields.
>  * Supporting this namespace inorder to not break defined ABIs.
>  *
>  * memory hierarchy (memory level, hit or miss)
>  */
> 
> I'll post a patch to set it separately.

Got it. I saw your patch, will review it.

Thanks,
Ravi
  

Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:04:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:28:03PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> > > It requires samples satisfy all the filter expressions otherwise it'd
> > > drop the sample.  IOW filter expressions are connected with logical AND
> > > operations unless they used "||" explicitly.  So if user has something
> > > like 'A, B || C, D', then BOTH A and D should be true AND either B or C
> > > also needs to be true.
> > > 
> > > Essentially the BPF filter expression is:
> > > 
> > >   <term> <operator> <value> (("," | "||") <term> <operator> <value>)*
> > > 
> > > The <term> can be one of:
> > >   ip, id, tid, pid, cpu, time, addr, period, txn, weight, phys_addr,
> > >   code_pgsz, data_pgsz, weight1, weight2, weight3, ins_lat, retire_lat,
> > >   p_stage_cyc, mem_op, mem_lvl, mem_snoop, mem_remote, mem_lock,
> > >   mem_dtlb, mem_blk, mem_hops
> > > 
> > > The <operator> can be one of:
> > >   ==, !=, >, >=, <, <=, &
> > > 
> > > The <value> can be one of:
> > >   <number> (for any term)
> > >   na, load, store, pfetch, exec (for mem_op)
> > >   l1, l2, l3, l4, cxl, io, any_cache, lfb, ram, pmem (for mem_lvl)
> > >   na, none, hit, miss, hitm, fwd, peer (for mem_snoop)
> > >   remote (for mem_remote)
> > >   na, locked (for mem_locked)
> > >   na, l1_hit, l1_miss, l2_hit, l2_miss, any_hit, any_miss, walk, fault (for mem_dtlb)
> > >   na, by_data, by_addr (for mem_blk)
> > >   hops0, hops1, hops2, hops3 (for mem_hops)
> > 
> > I think this and few examples should be added in perf-record man page.
> 
> Agreed, and even mentioning cases where it overcome problems like the
> filtering you mentioned for AMD systems.

So, what do you think is best? Wait for v5 or apply v4 and then add
documentation and other touches as followup patches?

- Arnaldo
  

On 14-Mar-23 5:09 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:04:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:28:03PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
>>>> It requires samples satisfy all the filter expressions otherwise it'd
>>>> drop the sample.  IOW filter expressions are connected with logical AND
>>>> operations unless they used "||" explicitly.  So if user has something
>>>> like 'A, B || C, D', then BOTH A and D should be true AND either B or C
>>>> also needs to be true.
>>>>
>>>> Essentially the BPF filter expression is:
>>>>
>>>>   <term> <operator> <value> (("," | "||") <term> <operator> <value>)*
>>>>
>>>> The <term> can be one of:
>>>>   ip, id, tid, pid, cpu, time, addr, period, txn, weight, phys_addr,
>>>>   code_pgsz, data_pgsz, weight1, weight2, weight3, ins_lat, retire_lat,
>>>>   p_stage_cyc, mem_op, mem_lvl, mem_snoop, mem_remote, mem_lock,
>>>>   mem_dtlb, mem_blk, mem_hops
>>>>
>>>> The <operator> can be one of:
>>>>   ==, !=, >, >=, <, <=, &
>>>>
>>>> The <value> can be one of:
>>>>   <number> (for any term)
>>>>   na, load, store, pfetch, exec (for mem_op)
>>>>   l1, l2, l3, l4, cxl, io, any_cache, lfb, ram, pmem (for mem_lvl)
>>>>   na, none, hit, miss, hitm, fwd, peer (for mem_snoop)
>>>>   remote (for mem_remote)
>>>>   na, locked (for mem_locked)
>>>>   na, l1_hit, l1_miss, l2_hit, l2_miss, any_hit, any_miss, walk, fault (for mem_dtlb)
>>>>   na, by_data, by_addr (for mem_blk)
>>>>   hops0, hops1, hops2, hops3 (for mem_hops)
>>>
>>> I think this and few examples should be added in perf-record man page.
>>
>> Agreed, and even mentioning cases where it overcome problems like the
>> filtering you mentioned for AMD systems.
> 
> So, what do you think is best? Wait for v5 or apply v4 and then add
> documentation and other touches as followup patches?

I'm fine with both :)

Thanks,
Ravi
  

Hello,

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 8:27 AM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com> wrote:
>
> On 14-Mar-23 5:09 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:04:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >> Em Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:28:03PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> >>>> It requires samples satisfy all the filter expressions otherwise it'd
> >>>> drop the sample.  IOW filter expressions are connected with logical AND
> >>>> operations unless they used "||" explicitly.  So if user has something
> >>>> like 'A, B || C, D', then BOTH A and D should be true AND either B or C
> >>>> also needs to be true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Essentially the BPF filter expression is:
> >>>>
> >>>>   <term> <operator> <value> (("," | "||") <term> <operator> <value>)*
> >>>>
> >>>> The <term> can be one of:
> >>>>   ip, id, tid, pid, cpu, time, addr, period, txn, weight, phys_addr,
> >>>>   code_pgsz, data_pgsz, weight1, weight2, weight3, ins_lat, retire_lat,
> >>>>   p_stage_cyc, mem_op, mem_lvl, mem_snoop, mem_remote, mem_lock,
> >>>>   mem_dtlb, mem_blk, mem_hops
> >>>>
> >>>> The <operator> can be one of:
> >>>>   ==, !=, >, >=, <, <=, &
> >>>>
> >>>> The <value> can be one of:
> >>>>   <number> (for any term)
> >>>>   na, load, store, pfetch, exec (for mem_op)
> >>>>   l1, l2, l3, l4, cxl, io, any_cache, lfb, ram, pmem (for mem_lvl)
> >>>>   na, none, hit, miss, hitm, fwd, peer (for mem_snoop)
> >>>>   remote (for mem_remote)
> >>>>   na, locked (for mem_locked)
> >>>>   na, l1_hit, l1_miss, l2_hit, l2_miss, any_hit, any_miss, walk, fault (for mem_dtlb)
> >>>>   na, by_data, by_addr (for mem_blk)
> >>>>   hops0, hops1, hops2, hops3 (for mem_hops)
> >>>
> >>> I think this and few examples should be added in perf-record man page.
> >>
> >> Agreed, and even mentioning cases where it overcome problems like the
> >> filtering you mentioned for AMD systems.
> >
> > So, what do you think is best? Wait for v5 or apply v4 and then add
> > documentation and other touches as followup patches?
>
> I'm fine with both :)

Unless there's an objection, I'd prefer you take the v4.
I'll send a documentation update later.

Thanks,
Namhyung