Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] perf cs_etm: Basic support for virtual/kernel timestamps
From: Tanmay Jagdale
Date: Fri Jan 20 2023 - 12:31:27 EST
Hi James,
> On 13/01/2023 11:12, James Clark wrote:
> > On 12/01/2023 15:33, Tanmay Jagdale wrote:
> >> Hi James
> >>
> >>>>>> base-commit: 09e6f9f98370be9a9f8978139e0eb1be87d1125f
> >>>>> I have tested this patch set on our platform and able to see updated
> >>>>> timestamp values in perf script's output.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> $ perf record -e cs_etm/cycacc,@tmc_etr0/k -C 9 taskset -c 9 sleep 2
> >>>>> $ perf script --itrace=i1ns --ns -Fcomm,tid,pid,time,cpu,event,ip,sym,addr,symoff,flags,callindent
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At certain points noticed that hardware emits same timestamp packets
> >>>>> but with updated cycle count (CC) values. A small snippet of the log:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Idx:100; ID:12; I_ADDR_S_IS0 : Address, Short, IS0.; Addr=0xFFFF8000086A761C ~[0x761C]
> >>>>> Idx:103; ID:12; I_TIMESTAMP : Timestamp.; Updated val = 0x2f373e37e02; CC=0x3d
> >>>>> Idx:107; ID:12; I_ATOM_F2 : Atom format 2.; EN
> >>>>> Idx:108; ID:12; I_TIMESTAMP : Timestamp.; Updated val = 0x2f373e37e02; CC=0x3f
> >>>>> Idx:112; ID:12; I_ATOM_F1 : Atom format 1.; N
> >>>>> Idx:113; ID:12; I_TIMESTAMP : Timestamp.; Updated val = 0x2f373e37e02; CC=0x45
> >>>>> Idx:116; ID:12; I_ATOM_F1 : Atom format 1.; E
> >>>>> Idx:117; ID:12; I_ADDR_S_IS0 : Address, Short, IS0.; Addr=0xFFFF8000086B52D4 ~[0x152D4]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since the source of timestamp is the Generic Timer block and the CPUs
> >>>>> run at higher frequencies, this behaviour could be possible on high
> >>>>> performance ARM cores.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Having consecutive timestamps with same value is resulting in a
> >>>>> slightly jumbled order (in nanosecs) in perf script's time column.
> >>>>> A snippet corresponding to the Coresight trace data mentioned above:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: return 0
> ffff8000086a761c coresight_timeout+0xc8
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: return 0
> ffff8000086a7620 coresight_timeout+0xcc
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629046: instructions:k: jmp 0
> ffff8000086a75c8 coresight_timeout+0x74
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629046: instructions:k: jmp 0
> ffff8000086a75cc coresight_timeout+0x78
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: jcc 0
> ffff8000086a75d0 coresight_timeout+0x7c
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: jcc 0
> ffff8000086a75d4 coresight_timeout+0x80
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: jcc 0
> ffff8000086a75d8 coresight_timeout+0x84
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: jcc 0
> ffff8000086a75dc coresight_timeout+0x88
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: jcc 0
> ffff8000086a75e0 coresight_timeout+0x8c
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: jcc 0
> ffff8000086a75e4 coresight_timeout+0x90
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: jcc 0
> ffff8000086a75e8 coresight_timeout+0x94
> >>>>> perf 965/965 [001] 3182.286629044: instructions:k: jcc 0
> ffff8000086a75ec coresight_timeout+0x98
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perf's do_soft_timestamp() logic in cs_etm_decoder.c file is incrementing
> >>>>> the HW timestamp based on instruction count. Since the next timestamp
> >>>>> also has the same value, it could be leading to this jumbled order.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We would like to know if this has been observed on other platforms ?
> >>>>> And what could be a solution in SW for this ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice catch. If I'm understanding this correctly it looks like the issue
> >>>> is a combination of the cycle count in the packet being ignored by Perf,
> >>>> and the instruction count being reset to 0 when a new timestamp is received.
> >>>>
> >>>> It looks like it can be fixed by some combination of combining the cycle
> >>>> count and instruction count and maybe not resetting instruction count if
> >>>> the newly received timestamp is the same as the last one. I will look
> >>>> into this.
> >>>>
> >>>> We haven't noticed it on any other platforms, but we haven't been
> >>>> looking too closely at the timestamps until now. Perhaps I can add a
> >>>> test that checks if the trace in a known function goes in the correct
> >>>> time order.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking of something like the following patch to fix the ordering.
> >>> It doesn't use the cycle count, but I'm not sure if that would be
> >>> worthwhile in the end, considering that it would have sub nanosecond
> >>> resolution so wouldn't affect the Perf timestamps:
> >> Thanks for coming up with a quick solution for this issue !
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c
> >>> index 31fa3b45134a..08a028e3e87a 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c
> >>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c
> >>> @@ -112,6 +112,19 @@ int cs_etm_decoder__get_packet(struct cs_etm_packet_queue *packet_queue,
> >>> return 1;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static u64 cs_etm_decoder__instr_count_to_ns(u64 instr_count)
> >>> +{
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Assume a maximum of 0.1ns elapsed per instruction. This would be the
> >>> + * case with a theoretical 10GHz core executing 1 instruction per cycle.
> >>> + * Used to estimate the sample time for synthesized instructions because
> >>> + * Coresight only emits a timestamp for a range of instructions rather
> >>> + * than per instruction.
> >>> + */
> >>> + const int INSTR_PER_NS = 10;
> >>> +
> >>> + return instr_count / INSTR_PER_NS;
> >>> +}
> >>> static int cs_etm_decoder__gen_etmv3_config(struct cs_etm_trace_params *params,
> >>> ocsd_etmv3_cfg *config)
> >>> {
> >>> @@ -267,7 +280,7 @@ cs_etm_decoder__do_soft_timestamp(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq,
> >>> packet_queue->cs_timestamp = packet_queue->next_cs_timestamp;
> >>>
> >>> /* Estimate the timestamp for the next range packet */
> >>> - packet_queue->next_cs_timestamp += packet_queue->instr_count;
> >>> + packet_queue->next_cs_timestamp += cs_etm_decoder__instr_count_to_ns(packet_queue->instr_count);
> >>> packet_queue->instr_count = 0;
> >>>
> >>> /* Tell the front end which traceid_queue needs attention */
> >>> @@ -295,11 +308,17 @@ cs_etm_decoder__do_hard_timestamp(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq,
> >>> * hence asking the decoder to keep decoding rather than stopping.
> >>> */
> >>> if (packet_queue->cs_timestamp) {
> >>> - packet_queue->next_cs_timestamp = elem->timestamp;
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Don't allow next_cs_timestamp to be less than the last one estimated by
> >>> + * cs_etm_decoder__do_soft_timestamp() otherwise new instructions would
> >>> + * appear to go back in time. In theory this should never happen, but if
> >>> + * it did, then next_cs_timestamp should eventually catch up to real time
> >>> + * unless every single range was predicted to be too long for some reason.
> >>> + */
> >>> + packet_queue->next_cs_timestamp = max(elem->timestamp, packet_queue->next_cs_timestamp);
> >>> return OCSD_RESP_CONT;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> if (!elem->timestamp) {
> >>> /*
> >>> * Zero timestamps can be seen due to misconfiguration or hardware bugs.
> >>> @@ -312,7 +331,7 @@ cs_etm_decoder__do_hard_timestamp(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq,
> >>> ". Decoding may be improved by prepending 'Z' to your current --itrace
> >>> arguments.\n",
> >>> indx);
> >>>
> >>> - } else if (packet_queue->instr_count > elem->timestamp) {
> >>> + } else if (cs_etm_decoder__instr_count_to_ns(packet_queue->instr_count) > elem->timestamp) {
> >>> /*
> >>> * Sanity check that the elem->timestamp - packet_queue->instr_count would not
> >>> * result in an underflow. Warn and clamp at 0 if it would.
> >>> @@ -327,7 +346,8 @@ cs_etm_decoder__do_hard_timestamp(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq,
> >>> * which instructions started by subtracting the number of instructions
> >>> * executed to the timestamp.
> >>> */
> >>> - packet_queue->cs_timestamp = elem->timestamp - packet_queue->instr_count;
> >>> + packet_queue->cs_timestamp = elem->timestamp -
> >>> + cs_etm_decoder__instr_count_to_ns(packet_queue->instr_count);
> >>> }
> >>> packet_queue->next_cs_timestamp = elem->timestamp;
> >>> packet_queue->instr_count = 0;
> >> I have tested this diff along with the patchset and found that
> >> timestamps are generated/estimated in an increasing order.
> >>
> >> However, found few corner cases where they weren't in order.
> >> I'm currently gathering more information on these corner cases.
> >>
> >> Used the following steps to find inconsistencies:
> >> $ perf record -e cs_etm/@tmc_etr0/k -C 4 taskset -c 4 sleep 1
> >> $ perf script --itrace=i1ns --ns -Fcomm,tid,pid,time,cpu,event,ip,sym,addr,symoff,flags,callindent > itrace
> >> $ sed 's/://g' itrace | awk -F '.' ' { print $2 } ' | awk '{ if ($1 < prev) { print "line:" NR " " $0 }
> {prev=$1}}'
> >>
> >> Setting INSTR_PER_NS to higher values (14,16,20 etc) results in
> >> lower inconsistencies but it would defeat the purpose of
> >> estimating values in software since we could be returning 0
> >> from __instr_count_to_ns() in many cases.
> >>
> >> Please share your thoughts.
> >
> > I believe this could be because I was adding nanosecond values
> > to the raw coresight counter before it was converted which was
> > a mistake. I have made another change to move the conversion
> > as early as possible to avoid mistakes like this.
> >
> > Increasing the INSTR_PER_NS shouldn't be required because of
> > the max() call, in fact INSTR_PER_NS isn't necessarily
> > needed at all, I just thought it would make it more accurate.
> >
> > I'll test the new version on the file that you sent before
> > pasting it here. If you have another recording that has more
> > of the edge cases then please also upload that one too.
>
> Hi Tanmay,
>
> I've sent v4 and I don't see any issues now with the files that you
> sent. There were a couple of different edge cases that I listed in the
> last commit message. Let me know if you find any more, otherwise if you
> leave your review or tested-by tag that would be great.
I have tested the latest v5 version on our platform with test
cases that run with and without filters for kernel/user space.
The timestamps look good on all of them.
Thanks for the effort !
Thanks and regards,
Tanmay
>
> Thanks
> James