From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc: mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, coresight@lists.linaro.org,
suzuki.poulose@arm.com, Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf cs-etm: Remove duplicate and incorrect aux size checks
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 21:44:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211209134413.GA622826@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <269d2f14-0594-c73e-97b5-82e72f76e826@arm.com>
On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:08:04PM +0000, James Clark wrote:
> On 08/12/2021 13:17, Leo Yan wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 11:54:35AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
> >> There are two checks, one is for size when running without admin, but
> >> this one is covered by the driver and reported on in more detail here
> >> (builtin-record.c):
> >>
> >> pr_err("Permission error mapping pages.\n"
> >> "Consider increasing "
> >> "/proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb,\n"
> >> "or try again with a smaller value of -m/--mmap_pages.\n"
> >> "(current value: %u,%u)\n",
> >
> > I looked into the kernel code and found:
> >
> > sysctl_perf_event_mlock = 512 + (PAGE_SIZE / 1024); // 512KB + 1 page
> >
> > If the system have multiple cores, let's say 8 cores, then kernel even
> > can relax the limitaion with:
> >
> > user_lock_limit *= num_online_cpus();
> >
> > So means the memory lock limitation is:
> >
> > (512KB + 1 page) * 8 = 4MB + 8 pages.
> >
> > Seems to me, it's much relax than the user space's limitaion 128KB.
> > And let's imagine for Arm server, the permitted buffer size can be a
> > huge value (e.g. for a system with 128 cores).
> >
> > Could you confirm if this is right?
>
> Yes that seems to be the case. And the commit message for that addition
> states the reasoning:
>
> perf_counter: Increase mmap limit
>
> In a default 'perf top' run the tool will create a counter for
> each online CPU. With enough CPUs this will eventually exhaust
> the default limit.
>
> So scale it up with the number of online CPUs.
>
> To me that makes sense. Normally the memory installed also scales with the
> number of cores.
>
> Are you saying that we should look into modifying that scaling factor in
> perf_mmap()? Or that we should still add something to userspace for
> coresight to limit user supplied buffer sizes?
I don't think we should modify the scaling factor in perf_mmap(), the
logic is not only used by AUX buffer, it's shared by normal event
ring buffer.
> I think it makes sense to allow the user to specify any value that will work,
> it's up to them.
Understand, I verified this patch with below steps:
root@debian:~# echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid
leoy@debian:~$ perf record -e cs_etm// -m 4M,8M -o perf_test.data -- sleep 1
Permission error mapping pages.
Consider increasing /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb,
or try again with a smaller value of -m/--mmap_pages.
(current value: 1024,2048)
leoy@debian:~$ perf record -e cs_etm// -m 4M,4M -o perf_test.data -- sleep 1
Couldn't synthesize bpf events.
[ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.607 MB perf_test.data ]
So this patch looks good for me:
Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-09 13:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-08 11:54 James Clark
2021-12-08 13:17 ` Leo Yan
2021-12-08 14:08 ` James Clark
2021-12-09 13:44 ` Leo Yan [this message]
2021-12-09 14:16 ` James Clark
2021-12-10 16:54 ` Mathieu Poirier
2021-12-10 17:55 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2021-12-10 19:03 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211209134413.GA622826@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s \
--to=leo.yan@linaro.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=coresight@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=james.clark@arm.com \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=mike.leach@linaro.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®