And the value is now an array. This is to support multiple filter
entries in the map later.
No functional changes intended.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
---
tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c | 81 ++++++++++++++------
tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample-filter.h | 1 +
tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c | 39 +++++-----
3 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
index 04f98b6bb291..2510832d83f9 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
@@ -93,71 +93,102 @@ static int check_sample_flags(struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_bpf_filter_expr *
int perf_bpf_filter__prepare(struct evsel *evsel)
{
- int i, x, y, fd;
+ int i, x, y, fd, ret;
struct sample_filter_bpf *skel;
struct bpf_program *prog;
struct bpf_link *link;
struct perf_bpf_filter_expr *expr;
+ struct perf_bpf_filter_entry *entry;
+
+ entry = calloc(MAX_FILTERS, sizeof(*entry));
+ if (entry == NULL)
+ return -1;
skel = sample_filter_bpf__open_and_load();
if (!skel) {
pr_err("Failed to load perf sample-filter BPF skeleton\n");
- return -1;
+ ret = -EPERM;
+ goto err;
}
i = 0;
fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.filters);
list_for_each_entry(expr, &evsel->bpf_filters, list) {
- struct perf_bpf_filter_entry entry = {
- .op = expr->op,
- .part = expr->part,
- .term = expr->term,
- .value = expr->val,
- };
+ if (check_sample_flags(evsel, expr) < 0) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err;
+ }
- if (check_sample_flags(evsel, expr) < 0)
- return -1;
+ if (i == MAX_FILTERS) {
+ ret = -E2BIG;
+ goto err;
+ }
- bpf_map_update_elem(fd, &i, &entry, BPF_ANY);
+ entry[i].op = expr->op;
+ entry[i].part = expr->part;
+ entry[i].term = expr->term;
+ entry[i].value = expr->val;
i++;
if (expr->op == PBF_OP_GROUP_BEGIN) {
struct perf_bpf_filter_expr *group;
list_for_each_entry(group, &expr->groups, list) {
- struct perf_bpf_filter_entry group_entry = {
- .op = group->op,
- .part = group->part,
- .term = group->term,
- .value = group->val,
- };
- bpf_map_update_elem(fd, &i, &group_entry, BPF_ANY);
+ if (i == MAX_FILTERS) {
+ ret = -E2BIG;
+ goto err;
+ }
+
+ entry[i].op = group->op;
+ entry[i].part = group->part;
+ entry[i].term = group->term;
+ entry[i].value = group->val;
i++;
}
- memset(&entry, 0, sizeof(entry));
- entry.op = PBF_OP_GROUP_END;
- bpf_map_update_elem(fd, &i, &entry, BPF_ANY);
+ if (i == MAX_FILTERS) {
+ ret = -E2BIG;
+ goto err;
+ }
+
+ entry[i].op = PBF_OP_GROUP_END;
i++;
}
}
- if (i > MAX_FILTERS) {
- pr_err("Too many filters: %d (max = %d)\n", i, MAX_FILTERS);
- return -1;
+ if (i < MAX_FILTERS) {
+ /* to terminate the loop early */
+ entry[i].op = PBF_OP_DONE;
+ i++;
+ }
+
+ /* The filters map has only one entry for now */
+ i = 0;
+ if (bpf_map_update_elem(fd, &i, entry, BPF_ANY) < 0) {
+ ret = -errno;
+ pr_err("Failed to update the filter map\n");
+ goto err;
}
+
prog = skel->progs.perf_sample_filter;
for (x = 0; x < xyarray__max_x(evsel->core.fd); x++) {
for (y = 0; y < xyarray__max_y(evsel->core.fd); y++) {
link = bpf_program__attach_perf_event(prog, FD(evsel, x, y));
if (IS_ERR(link)) {
pr_err("Failed to attach perf sample-filter program\n");
- return PTR_ERR(link);
+ ret = PTR_ERR(link);
+ goto err;
}
}
}
+ free(entry);
evsel->bpf_skel = skel;
return 0;
+
+err:
+ free(entry);
+ sample_filter_bpf__destroy(skel);
+ return ret;
}
int perf_bpf_filter__destroy(struct evsel *evsel)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample-filter.h b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample-filter.h
index 350efa121026..bb6a1b91f1df 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample-filter.h
+++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample-filter.h
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ enum perf_bpf_filter_op {
PBF_OP_AND,
PBF_OP_GROUP_BEGIN,
PBF_OP_GROUP_END,
+ PBF_OP_DONE,
};
enum perf_bpf_filter_term {
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c
index f59985101973..0d56e52b922c 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c
@@ -9,10 +9,10 @@
/* BPF map that will be filled by user space */
struct filters {
- __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
__type(key, int);
- __type(value, struct perf_bpf_filter_entry);
- __uint(max_entries, MAX_FILTERS);
+ __type(value, struct perf_bpf_filter_entry[MAX_FILTERS]);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
} filters SEC(".maps");
int dropped;
@@ -179,39 +179,39 @@ int perf_sample_filter(void *ctx)
__u64 sample_data;
int in_group = 0;
int group_result = 0;
- int i;
+ int i, k;
kctx = bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx(ctx);
- for (i = 0; i < MAX_FILTERS; i++) {
- int key = i; /* needed for verifier :( */
+ k = 0;
+ entry = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&filters, &k);
+ if (entry == NULL)
+ goto drop;
- entry = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&filters, &key);
- if (entry == NULL)
- break;
- sample_data = perf_get_sample(kctx, entry);
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_FILTERS; i++) {
+ sample_data = perf_get_sample(kctx, &entry[i]);
- switch (entry->op) {
+ switch (entry[i].op) {
case PBF_OP_EQ:
- CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, ==, entry->value)
+ CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, ==, entry[i].value)
break;
case PBF_OP_NEQ:
- CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, !=, entry->value)
+ CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, !=, entry[i].value)
break;
case PBF_OP_GT:
- CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, >, entry->value)
+ CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, >, entry[i].value)
break;
case PBF_OP_GE:
- CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, >=, entry->value)
+ CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, >=, entry[i].value)
break;
case PBF_OP_LT:
- CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, <, entry->value)
+ CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, <, entry[i].value)
break;
case PBF_OP_LE:
- CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, <=, entry->value)
+ CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, <=, entry[i].value)
break;
case PBF_OP_AND:
- CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, &, entry->value)
+ CHECK_RESULT(sample_data, &, entry[i].value)
break;
case PBF_OP_GROUP_BEGIN:
in_group = 1;
@@ -222,6 +222,9 @@ int perf_sample_filter(void *ctx)
goto drop;
in_group = 0;
break;
+ case PBF_OP_DONE:
+ /* no failures so far, accept it */
+ return 1;
}
}
/* generate sample data */
--
2.45.2.803.g4e1b14247a-googOn Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:30:28PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> And the value is now an array. This is to support multiple filter
> entries in the map later.
>
> No functional changes intended.
Hey how can we test this feature these days?
With this first patch applied:
root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cycles:p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
Hint: please add -W option to perf record
failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cpu_core/cycles/p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
Error: cpu_core/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
Hint: please add -W option to perf record
failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_core/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cpu_atom/cycles/p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
Hint: please add -W option to perf record
failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
root@number:~#
Interesting, it is taking a long time on the BPF prog load:
bpf(BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM, {map_fd=49, key=0x7ffcc85a545c, value=0x7fee34bc2000, flags=BPF_ANY}, 32) = 0
bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD, {prog_type=BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT, insn_cnt=335, insns=0xd1e6480, license="Dual BSD/GPL", log_level=0, log_size=0, log_buf=NULL, kern_version=KERNEL_VERSION(6, 9, 9), prog_flags=0, prog_name="perf_sample_fil", prog_ifindex=0, expected_attach_type=BPF_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS, prog_btf_fd=50, func_info_rec_size=8, func_info=0xd1b9c80, func_info_cnt=1, line_info_rec_size=16, line_info=0xd1e5300, line_info_cnt=135, attach_btf_id=0, attach_prog_fd=0, fd_array=NULL}, 148^Cstrace: Process 2110180 detached
<detached ...>
<HERE it takes an unusual time, even returning after I cancelled the strace session>
root@number:~#
root@number:~# Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
Hint: please add -W option to perf record
failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable)
root@number:~#
root@number:~# uname -a
Linux number 6.9.9-100.fc39.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Jul 11 19:26:10 UTC 2024 x86_64 GNU/Linux
root@number:~#
root@number:~# perf -v
perf version 6.10.g5510fb5c79e9
root@number:~#
⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ git log --oneline -10
5510fb5c79e9f500 (HEAD -> perf-tools-next) perf annotate: Set instruction name to be used with insn-stat when using raw instruction
b35a86e53eb496ea perf annotate: Add support to use libcapstone in powerpc
f2dc60d11290d53e perf annotate: Use capstone_init and remove open_capstone_handle from disasm.c
c5bcba602eeee554 perf annotate: Make capstone_init non-static so that it can be used during symbol disassemble
eef369c562510092 perf annotate: Update instruction tracking for powerpc
282701f1d77a3bdb perf annotate: Add more instructions for instruction tracking
758ee468ce5721e4 perf annotate: Add some of the arithmetic instructions to support instruction tracking in powerpc
e8e7c1b6a9572bab perf annotate: Add support to identify memory instructions of opcode 31 in powerpc
3b3a0f04c1c6cd10 perf annotate: Add parse function for memory instructions in powerpc
a159d2acd44e707f perf annotate: Update parameters for reg extract functions to use raw instruction on powerpc
⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$
Ideas?
- Arnaldo
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 04:32:16PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:30:28PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > And the value is now an array. This is to support multiple filter
> > entries in the map later.
> >
> > No functional changes intended.
>
> Hey how can we test this feature these days?
There's a 'perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests'.
$ ./perf test -vv filtering
95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests:
--- start ---
test child forked, pid 1042594
Checking BPF-filter privilege
try 'sudo perf record --setup-filter pin' first.
bpf-filter test [Skipped permission]
---- end(-2) ----
95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests : Skip
>
> With this first patch applied:
>
> root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cycles:p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
> Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> Hint: please add -W option to perf record
> failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
> root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cpu_core/cycles/p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
> Error: cpu_core/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> Hint: please add -W option to perf record
> failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_core/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
> root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cpu_atom/cycles/p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
> Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> Hint: please add -W option to perf record
> failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
> root@number:~#
Do you say it's failing after the first patch? It looks like the atom
CPU doesn't support PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT and should fail already.
The above test doesn't check the weight field FYI.
>
> Interesting, it is taking a long time on the BPF prog load:
>
> bpf(BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM, {map_fd=49, key=0x7ffcc85a545c, value=0x7fee34bc2000, flags=BPF_ANY}, 32) = 0
> bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD, {prog_type=BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT, insn_cnt=335, insns=0xd1e6480, license="Dual BSD/GPL", log_level=0, log_size=0, log_buf=NULL, kern_version=KERNEL_VERSION(6, 9, 9), prog_flags=0, prog_name="perf_sample_fil", prog_ifindex=0, expected_attach_type=BPF_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS, prog_btf_fd=50, func_info_rec_size=8, func_info=0xd1b9c80, func_info_cnt=1, line_info_rec_size=16, line_info=0xd1e5300, line_info_cnt=135, attach_btf_id=0, attach_prog_fd=0, fd_array=NULL}, 148^Cstrace: Process 2110180 detached
> <detached ...>
>
> <HERE it takes an unusual time, even returning after I cancelled the strace session>
>
> root@number:~#
> root@number:~# Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> Hint: please add -W option to perf record
> failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable)
>
> root@number:~#
>
>
> root@number:~# uname -a
> Linux number 6.9.9-100.fc39.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Jul 11 19:26:10 UTC 2024 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> root@number:~#
>
> root@number:~# perf -v
> perf version 6.10.g5510fb5c79e9
> root@number:~#
>
> ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ git log --oneline -10
> 5510fb5c79e9f500 (HEAD -> perf-tools-next) perf annotate: Set instruction name to be used with insn-stat when using raw instruction
> b35a86e53eb496ea perf annotate: Add support to use libcapstone in powerpc
> f2dc60d11290d53e perf annotate: Use capstone_init and remove open_capstone_handle from disasm.c
> c5bcba602eeee554 perf annotate: Make capstone_init non-static so that it can be used during symbol disassemble
> eef369c562510092 perf annotate: Update instruction tracking for powerpc
> 282701f1d77a3bdb perf annotate: Add more instructions for instruction tracking
> 758ee468ce5721e4 perf annotate: Add some of the arithmetic instructions to support instruction tracking in powerpc
> e8e7c1b6a9572bab perf annotate: Add support to identify memory instructions of opcode 31 in powerpc
> 3b3a0f04c1c6cd10 perf annotate: Add parse function for memory instructions in powerpc
> a159d2acd44e707f perf annotate: Update parameters for reg extract functions to use raw instruction on powerpc
> ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$
>
> Ideas?
I don't know.. is it changed with this patch?
Thanks,
Namhyung
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 01:20:27PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 04:32:16PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:30:28PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > And the value is now an array. This is to support multiple filter
> > > entries in the map later.
> > >
> > > No functional changes intended.
> >
> > Hey how can we test this feature these days?
>
> There's a 'perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests'.
>
> $ ./perf test -vv filtering
> 95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests:
> --- start ---
> test child forked, pid 1042594
> Checking BPF-filter privilege
> try 'sudo perf record --setup-filter pin' first.
> bpf-filter test [Skipped permission]
> ---- end(-2) ----
> 95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests : Skip
>
> >
> > With this first patch applied:
> >
> > root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cycles:p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
> > Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> > Hint: please add -W option to perf record
> > failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
> > root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cpu_core/cycles/p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
> > Error: cpu_core/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> > Hint: please add -W option to perf record
> > failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_core/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
> > root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cpu_atom/cycles/p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1
> > Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> > Hint: please add -W option to perf record
> > failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported)
> > root@number:~#
>
> Do you say it's failing after the first patch? It looks like the atom
yes
> CPU doesn't support PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT and should fail already.
I tried with 'cycles:p', 'cpu_atom/cycles/p' and with
'cpu_core/cycles/p', with and without -W (to use the warning advice)
will try again tomorrow.
- Arnaldo
> The above test doesn't check the weight field FYI.
>
> >
> > Interesting, it is taking a long time on the BPF prog load:
> >
> > bpf(BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM, {map_fd=49, key=0x7ffcc85a545c, value=0x7fee34bc2000, flags=BPF_ANY}, 32) = 0
> > bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD, {prog_type=BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT, insn_cnt=335, insns=0xd1e6480, license="Dual BSD/GPL", log_level=0, log_size=0, log_buf=NULL, kern_version=KERNEL_VERSION(6, 9, 9), prog_flags=0, prog_name="perf_sample_fil", prog_ifindex=0, expected_attach_type=BPF_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS, prog_btf_fd=50, func_info_rec_size=8, func_info=0xd1b9c80, func_info_cnt=1, line_info_rec_size=16, line_info=0xd1e5300, line_info_cnt=135, attach_btf_id=0, attach_prog_fd=0, fd_array=NULL}, 148^Cstrace: Process 2110180 detached
> > <detached ...>
> >
> > <HERE it takes an unusual time, even returning after I cancelled the strace session>
> >
> > root@number:~#
> > root@number:~# Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> > Hint: please add -W option to perf record
> > failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable)
> >
> > root@number:~#
> >
> >
> > root@number:~# uname -a
> > Linux number 6.9.9-100.fc39.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Jul 11 19:26:10 UTC 2024 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > root@number:~#
> >
> > root@number:~# perf -v
> > perf version 6.10.g5510fb5c79e9
> > root@number:~#
> >
> > ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ git log --oneline -10
> > 5510fb5c79e9f500 (HEAD -> perf-tools-next) perf annotate: Set instruction name to be used with insn-stat when using raw instruction
> > b35a86e53eb496ea perf annotate: Add support to use libcapstone in powerpc
> > f2dc60d11290d53e perf annotate: Use capstone_init and remove open_capstone_handle from disasm.c
> > c5bcba602eeee554 perf annotate: Make capstone_init non-static so that it can be used during symbol disassemble
> > eef369c562510092 perf annotate: Update instruction tracking for powerpc
> > 282701f1d77a3bdb perf annotate: Add more instructions for instruction tracking
> > 758ee468ce5721e4 perf annotate: Add some of the arithmetic instructions to support instruction tracking in powerpc
> > e8e7c1b6a9572bab perf annotate: Add support to identify memory instructions of opcode 31 in powerpc
> > 3b3a0f04c1c6cd10 perf annotate: Add parse function for memory instructions in powerpc
> > a159d2acd44e707f perf annotate: Update parameters for reg extract functions to use raw instruction on powerpc
> > ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$
> >
> > Ideas?
>
> I don't know.. is it changed with this patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 06:39:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 01:20:27PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 04:32:16PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:30:28PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > And the value is now an array. This is to support multiple filter > > > > entries in the map later. > > > > > > > > No functional changes intended. > > > > > > Hey how can we test this feature these days? > > > > There's a 'perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests'. > > > > $ ./perf test -vv filtering > > 95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests: > > --- start --- > > test child forked, pid 1042594 > > Checking BPF-filter privilege > > try 'sudo perf record --setup-filter pin' first. > > bpf-filter test [Skipped permission] > > ---- end(-2) ---- > > 95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests : Skip > > > > > > > > With this first patch applied: > > > > > > root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cycles:p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1 > > > Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT > > > Hint: please add -W option to perf record > > > failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported) > > > root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cpu_core/cycles/p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1 > > > Error: cpu_core/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT > > > Hint: please add -W option to perf record > > > failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_core/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported) > > > root@number:~# perf record -a -W -e cpu_atom/cycles/p --filter 'period > 100 || weight > 0' sleep 1 > > > Error: cpu_atom/cycles/p event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT > > > Hint: please add -W option to perf record > > > failed to set filter "BPF" on event cpu_atom/cycles/p with 95 (Operation not supported) > > > root@number:~# > > > > Do you say it's failing after the first patch? It looks like the atom > > yes > > > CPU doesn't support PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT and should fail already. > > I tried with 'cycles:p', 'cpu_atom/cycles/p' and with > 'cpu_core/cycles/p', with and without -W (to use the warning advice) > will try again tomorrow. Let me know if you find anything. Maybe it didn't set the flag in the attr. Can you run `perf record -W true && perf evlist -v` ? Thanks, Namhyung
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:30:28PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> And the value is now an array. This is to support multiple filter
> entries in the map later.
> No functional changes intended.
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
> @@ -93,71 +93,102 @@ static int check_sample_flags(struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_bpf_filter_expr *
>
> int perf_bpf_filter__prepare(struct evsel *evsel)
> {
> - int i, x, y, fd;
> + int i, x, y, fd, ret;
> struct sample_filter_bpf *skel;
> struct bpf_program *prog;
> struct bpf_link *link;
> struct perf_bpf_filter_expr *expr;
> + struct perf_bpf_filter_entry *entry;
> +
> + entry = calloc(MAX_FILTERS, sizeof(*entry));
> + if (entry == NULL)
> + return -1;
I'm changing this to -ENOMEM since you use errno values in the other
failure cases, ok?
This:
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
index 2510832d83f95e03..e98bacf41a248ced 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ int perf_bpf_filter__prepare(struct evsel *evsel)
entry = calloc(MAX_FILTERS, sizeof(*entry));
if (entry == NULL)
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;
skel = sample_filter_bpf__open_and_load();
if (!skel) {
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 03:55:15PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:30:28PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > And the value is now an array. This is to support multiple filter
> > entries in the map later.
>
> > No functional changes intended.
>
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
> > @@ -93,71 +93,102 @@ static int check_sample_flags(struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_bpf_filter_expr *
> >
> > int perf_bpf_filter__prepare(struct evsel *evsel)
> > {
> > - int i, x, y, fd;
> > + int i, x, y, fd, ret;
> > struct sample_filter_bpf *skel;
> > struct bpf_program *prog;
> > struct bpf_link *link;
> > struct perf_bpf_filter_expr *expr;
> > + struct perf_bpf_filter_entry *entry;
> > +
> > + entry = calloc(MAX_FILTERS, sizeof(*entry));
> > + if (entry == NULL)
> > + return -1;
>
> I'm changing this to -ENOMEM since you use errno values in the other
> failure cases, ok?
Sure thing!
Thanks,
Namhyung
>
> This:
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
> index 2510832d83f95e03..e98bacf41a248ced 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf-filter.c
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ int perf_bpf_filter__prepare(struct evsel *evsel)
>
> entry = calloc(MAX_FILTERS, sizeof(*entry));
> if (entry == NULL)
> - return -1;
> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> skel = sample_filter_bpf__open_and_load();
> if (!skel) {
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.