Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Support vector and more extended registers in perf

From: Liang, Kan
Date: Tue Jun 17 2025 - 09:53:40 EST




On 2025-06-17 4:24 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 06:49:31AM -0700, kan.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Starting from the Intel Ice Lake, the XMM registers can be collected in
>> a PEBS record. More registers, e.g., YMM, ZMM, OPMASK, SPP and APX, will
>> be added in the upcoming Architecture PEBS as well. But it requires the
>> hardware support.
>>
>> The patch set provides a software solution to mitigate the hardware
>> requirement. It utilizes the XSAVES command to retrieve the requested
>> registers in the overflow handler. The feature isn't limited to the PEBS
>> event or specific platforms anymore.
>> The hardware solution (if available) is still preferred, since it has
>> low overhead (especially with the large PEBS) and is more accurate.
>>
>> In theory, the solution should work for all X86 platforms. But I only
>> have newer Inter platforms to test. The patch set only enable the
>> feature for Intel Ice Lake and later platforms.
>>
>> Open:
>> The new registers include YMM, ZMM, OPMASK, SSP, and APX.
>> The sample_regs_user/intr has run out. A new field in the
>> struct perf_event_attr is required for the registers.
>> There could be several options as below for the new field.
>>
>> - Follow a similar format to XSAVES. Introduce the below fields to store
>> the bitmap of the registers.
>> struct perf_event_attr {
>> ...
>> __u64 sample_ext_regs_intr[2];
>> __u64 sample_ext_regs_user[2];
>> ...
>> }
>> Includes YMMH (16 bits), APX (16 bits), OPMASK (8 bits),
>> ZMMH0-15 (16 bits), H16ZMM (16 bits), SSP
>> For example, if a user wants YMM8, the perf tool needs to set the
>> corresponding bits of XMM8 and YMMH8, and reconstruct the result.
>> The method is similar to the existing method for
>> sample_regs_user/intr, and match the XSAVES format.
>> The kernel doesn't need to do extra configuration and reconstruction.
>> It's implemented in the patch set.
>>
>> - Similar to the above method. But the fields are the bitmap of the
>> complete registers, E.g., YMM (16 bits), APX (16 bits),
>> OPMASK (8 bits), ZMM (32 bits), SSP.
>> The kernel needs to do extra configuration and reconstruction,
>> which may brings extra overhead.
>>
>> - Combine the XMM, YMM, and ZMM. So all the registers can be put into
>> one u64 field.
>> ...
>> union {
>> __u64 sample_ext_regs_intr; //sample_ext_regs_user is simiar
>> struct {
>> __u32 vector_bitmap;
>> __u32 vector_type : 3, //0b001 XMM 0b010 YMM 0b100 ZMM
>> apx_bitmap : 16,
>> opmask_bitmap : 8,
>> ssp_bitmap : 1,
>> reserved : 4,
>>
>> };
>> ...
>> For example, if the YMM8-15 is required,
>> vector_bitmap: 0x0000ff00
>> vector_type: 0x2
>> This method can save two __u64 in the struct perf_event_attr.
>> But it's not straightforward since it mixes the type and bitmap.
>> The kernel also needs to do extra configuration and reconstruction.
>>
>> Please let me know if there are more ideas.
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250416155327.GD17910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>

It's similar to the third method, but using the words to replace the
type. Also there are more space left in case we add more SIMDs in future.
I will implement it in the V2.
> comes to mind. Combine that with a rule that reclaims the XMM register
> space from perf_event_x86_regs when sample_simd_reg_words != 0, and then
> we can put APX and SPP there.

OK. So the sample_simd_reg_words actually has another meaning now. It's
used as a flag to tell whether utilizing the old format.

If so, I think it may be better to have a dedicate sample_simd_reg_flag
field.

For example,

#define SAMPLE_SIMD_FLAGS_FORMAT_LEGACY 0x0
#define SAMPLE_SIMD_FLAGS_FORMAT_WORDS 0x1

__u8 sample_simd_reg_flags;
__u8 sample_simd_reg_words;
__u64 sample_simd_reg_intr;
__u64 sample_simd_reg_user;

If (sample_simd_reg_flags != 0) reclaims the XMM space for APX and SPP.

Does it make sense?

Thanks,
Kan