diff mbox

[v3,2/5] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type

Message ID 20170411081830.57372og2mzkhiftr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable
Headers show

Commit Message

Peter Zijlstra April 11, 2017, 8:18 a.m. UTC 
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:52:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:56:30PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:

> > @@ -960,6 +1006,11 @@ intel_pmu_lbr_filter(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
> >  			cpuc->lbr_entries[i].from = 0;
> >  			compress = true;
> >  		}
> > +
> > +		if ((br_sel & X86_BR_TYPE_SAVE) == X86_BR_TYPE_SAVE)
> > +			cpuc->lbr_entries[i].type = common_branch_type(type);
> > +		else
> > +			cpuc->lbr_entries[i].type = PERF_BR_NONE;
> >  	}

I was wondering WTH you did that else; because it should already be 0
(aka, BR_NONE). Then I found intel_pmu_lbr_read_32() is already broken,
and you just broke intel_pmu_lbr_read_64().

Arguably we should add a union on the last __u64 with a name for the
entire thing, but the below is the minimal fix.

---
Subject: perf,x86: Avoid exposing wrong/stale data in intel_pmu_lbr_read_32()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Tue Apr 11 10:10:28 CEST 2017

When the perf_branch_entry::{in_tx,abort,cycles} fields were added,
intel_pmu_lbr_read_32() wasn't updated to initialize them.

Fixes: 135c5612c460 ("perf/x86/intel: Support Haswell/v4 LBR format")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---

Comments

Jin, Yao April 11, 2017, 11:51 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 4/11/2017 4:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:52:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:56:30PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
>>> @@ -960,6 +1006,11 @@ intel_pmu_lbr_filter(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
>>>   			cpuc->lbr_entries[i].from = 0;
>>>   			compress = true;
>>>   		}
>>> +
>>> +		if ((br_sel & X86_BR_TYPE_SAVE) == X86_BR_TYPE_SAVE)
>>> +			cpuc->lbr_entries[i].type = common_branch_type(type);
>>> +		else
>>> +			cpuc->lbr_entries[i].type = PERF_BR_NONE;
>>>   	}
> I was wondering WTH you did that else; because it should already be 0
> (aka, BR_NONE).

Yes. I will remove the else code. Thanks!

> Then I found intel_pmu_lbr_read_32() is already broken,
> and you just broke intel_pmu_lbr_read_64().
>
> Arguably we should add a union on the last __u64 with a name for the
> entire thing, but the below is the minimal fix.
>
> ---
> Subject: perf,x86: Avoid exposing wrong/stale data in intel_pmu_lbr_read_32()
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Date: Tue Apr 11 10:10:28 CEST 2017
>
> When the perf_branch_entry::{in_tx,abort,cycles} fields were added,
> intel_pmu_lbr_read_32() wasn't updated to initialize them.
>
> Fixes: 135c5612c460 ("perf/x86/intel: Support Haswell/v4 LBR format")
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> @@ -507,6 +507,9 @@ static void intel_pmu_lbr_read_32(struct
>   		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].to		= msr_lastbranch.to;
>   		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].mispred	= 0;
>   		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].predicted	= 0;
> +		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].in_tx	= 0;
> +		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].abort	= 0;
> +		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].cycles	= 0;
>   		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].reserved	= 0;
>   	}
>   	cpuc->lbr_stack.nr = i;

I will add cpuc->lbr_entries[i].type = 0 in my patch.
diff mbox

Patch

--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
@@ -507,6 +507,9 @@  static void intel_pmu_lbr_read_32(struct
 		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].to		= msr_lastbranch.to;
 		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].mispred	= 0;
 		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].predicted	= 0;
+		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].in_tx	= 0;
+		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].abort	= 0;
+		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].cycles	= 0;
 		cpuc->lbr_entries[i].reserved	= 0;
 	}
 	cpuc->lbr_stack.nr = i;