Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf tools: Improve IBS error handling

[Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@amd.com>]

On 10/7/21 2:17 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On 10/7/21 12:28 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 04:41:14PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
>>> ---
>>>   tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
>>> index b915840690d4..f8a9cbd99314 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
>>> @@ -2743,9 +2743,22 @@ static bool find_process(const char *name)
>>>       return ret ? false : true;
>>>   }
>>> +static bool is_amd(const char *arch, const char *cpuid)
>>> +{
>>> +    return arch && !strcmp("x86", arch) && cpuid && strstarts(cpuid, "AuthenticAMD");
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static bool is_amd_ibs(struct evsel *evsel)
>>> +{
>>> +    return evsel->core.attr.precise_ip || !strncmp(evsel->pmu_name, "ibs", 3);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   int evsel__open_strerror(struct evsel *evsel, struct target *target,
>>>                int err, char *msg, size_t size)
>>>   {
>>> +    struct perf_env *env = evsel__env(evsel);
>>> +    const char *arch = perf_env__arch(env);
>>> +    const char *cpuid = perf_env__cpuid(env);
>>>       char sbuf[STRERR_BUFSIZE];
>>>       int printed = 0, enforced = 0;
>>> @@ -2841,6 +2854,17 @@ int evsel__open_strerror(struct evsel *evsel, struct target *target,
>>>               return scnprintf(msg, size, "wrong clockid (%d).", clockid);
>>>           if (perf_missing_features.aux_output)
>>>               return scnprintf(msg, size, "The 'aux_output' feature is not supported, update the kernel.");
>>> +        if (is_amd(arch, cpuid)) {
>>> +            if (is_amd_ibs(evsel)) {
>>
>> would single 'is_amd_ibs' call be better? checking on both amd and ibs
> 
> Good suggestion. If you look at the later patch in the
> BRS series, I have rewritten it to add the new
> AMD PMU like so:
> 
>   if (is_amd()) {
>       if (is_amd_ibs()) {
>           if (evsel->this)
>               return
>           if (evsel->that)
>               return
>       }
> +    if (is_amd_brs()) {
> +        if (evsel->this)
> +            return
> +        if (evsel->that)
> +            return
> +    }
>   }
> 
> Below is the full proposed replacement patch for patch 12
> of 13 of the BRS series.
> 
> Another option is to have the is_amd_{ibs,brs} functions
> call is_amd() themselves, so the if (evsel->) code could be
> unindented by one tab, would that be better?

No reply, so guessing not.

Arnaldo, can these two patches be applied please?

Thanks,

Kim