On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 01:27:29PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> pid = -1 for off-cpu's bpf-output event.
>
> This makes 'perf record -p <PID> --off-cpu', and 'perf record --off-cpu
> <workload>' work. Otherwise bpf-output cannot be collected.
>
> The reason (conjecture): say if we open perf_event on pid = 11451, then
> in BPF, we call bpf_perf_event_output() when a direct sample is ready to
> be dumped. But currently the perf_event of pid 11451 is not __fully__
> sched_in yet, so in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c's
> __bpf_perf_event_output(), there will be event->oncpu != cpu, thus
> return -EOPNOTSUPP, direct off-cpu sample output failed.
>
> if (unlikely(event->oncpu != cpu))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> So I'm making it pid = -1, everybody can do bpf_perf_event_output()
>
> P.S. In perf trace this is not necessary, because it uses syscall
> tracepoints, instead of sched_switch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Howard Chu <howardchu95@gmail.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> index edfb376f0611..500ca62669cb 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> @@ -2368,6 +2368,9 @@ static int evsel__open_cpu(struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_cpu_map *cpus,
>
> test_attr__ready();
>
> + if (evsel__is_offcpu_event(evsel))
> + pid = -1;
> +
This looks hacky. I think you'll end up having two copies of offcpu
events if there are two target tasks. Maybe you can replace the thread
map of the offcpu event to have a single entry (-1) for any thread after
creating the event.
Thanks,
Namhyung
> /* Debug message used by test scripts */
> pr_debug2_peo("sys_perf_event_open: pid %d cpu %d group_fd %d flags %#lx",
> pid, perf_cpu_map__cpu(cpus, idx).cpu, group_fd, evsel->open_flags);
> --
> 2.43.0
>