Re: [PATCH 5/7] perf metricgroup: Remove duped metric group events
From: Jiri Olsa <hidden>
Date: 2020-05-20 22:09:30
Also in:
bpf, linux-perf-users, lkml
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 09:50:13AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: SNIP
quoted
quoted
+ }is the groupping still enabled when we merge groups? could part of the metric (events) be now computed in different groups?By default the change will take two metrics and allow the shorter metric (in terms of number of events) to share the events of the longer metric. If the events for the shorter metric aren't in the longer metric then the shorter metric must use its own group of events. If sharing has occurred then the bitmap is used to work out which events and groups are no longer in use. With --metric-no-group then any event can be used for a metric as there is no grouping. This is why more events can be eliminated. With --metric-no-merge then the logic to share events between different metrics is disabled and every metric is in a group. This allows the current behavior to be had. There are some corner cases, such as metrics with constraints (that don't group) and duration_time that is never placed into a group. Partial sharing, with one event in 1 weak event group and 1 in another is never performed. Using --metric-no-group allows something similar. Given multiplexing, I'd be concerned about accuracy problems if events between groups were shared - say for IPC, were you measuring instructions and cycles at the same moment?
hum, I think that's also concern if you are multiplexing 2 groups and one metric getting events from both groups that were not meassured together it makes sense to me put all the merged events into single weak group anything else will have the issue you described above, no? and perhaps add command line option for merging that to make sure it's what user actuly wants thanks, jirka
quoted
I was wondering if we could merge all the hasmaps into single one before the parse the evlist.. this way we won't need removing later.. but I did not thought this through completely, so it might not work at some pointThis could be done in the --metric-no-group case reasonably easily like the current hashmap. For groups you'd want something like a set of sets of events, but then you'd only be able to share events if the sets were the same. A directed acyclic graph could capture the events and the sharing relationships, it may be possible to optimize cases like {A,B,C}, {A,B,D}, {A,B} so that the small group on the end shares events with both the {A,B,C} and {A,B,D} group. This may be good follow up work. We could also solve this in the json, for example create a "phony" group of {A,B,C,D} that all three metrics share from. You could also use --metric-no-group to achieve that sharing now. Thanks, Ianquoted
jirka