[PATCH 00/10] perf tools: Add support for CoreSight trace decoding

[Kim Phillips]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:11:00 -0700
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier at linaro.org> wrote:

> On 11 January 2018 at 10:28, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:45:21 -0700
> > Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11 January 2018 at 05:23, Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 06:08:21PM -0600, Kim Phillips wrote:
> >> >> Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier at linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Instructions on how to build and install the openCSD library are provided
> >> >> > in the HOWTO.md of the project repository.
> >> >
> >> >> Usually when a perf builder sees something they need "on," they - or,
> >> >> at least I - start querying the host's package manager for something
> >> >> that provides it (e.g., apt search/install libopencsd), but since no
> >> >> distro provides libopencsd, this is bad because it misleads the user.
> >> >
> >> > It's on the radar to push this at distros fairly soon.
> >
> > Adding packages to distros takes years, this patchset is being
> > submitted for inclusion *now*.  So until then, it would greatly
> > facilitate users if the relevant libopencsd source files were
> > self-contained within perf from the get go.
> 
> I do not agree with you on the front that it takes years.  On the flip
> side it would take a significant amount of time and effort to refactor
> the openCSD library so that it can be added to the kernel tree.  This

The dtc wasn't refactored before it was added to the kernel tree.

> patchset is available now with a solution that follows what has
> already been done for dozens of other external library.  There is no
> point in delaying the inclusion of the functionality when an
> end-to-end solution exists.

See above: I'm not necessarily suggesting the code get refactored.

> >> >  Part of the
> >> > discussion was wanting to get things to the point where the tools using
> >> > the library were far enough along that we could be reasonably sure that
> >
> > Curious, what other tools are there?
> 
> Ask around at ARM.

I'm asking the person that claimed it.

> >> > there weren't any problems that were going to require ABI breaks to fix
> >> > before pushing the library at distros since ABI churn isn't nice for
> >> > packagers to deal with.
> >
> > Why make perf the guinea pig?  Whatever, this doesn't preclude
> > adding the code into the tree; it can be removed years from now when
> > libopencsd becomes ubiquitous among distros.
> 
> The same can be said about proceeding the other way around - the
> openCSD library can be added to the kernel tree later if it is deemed
> necessary.  Until then I really don't see why we'd prevent people from
> accessing the functionality.

Again, I'm not suggesting the code be refactored...

> >> > There's also a bit of a chicken and egg problem
> >> > in that it's a lot easier to get distros to package libraries that have
> >> > users available (some are not really bothered about this of course but
> >> > it still helps).
> >>
> >> Moreover including in the kernel tree every library that can
> >> potentially be used by the perf tools simply doesn't scale.
> >
> > This is a trace decoder library we're talking about:  there are no
> > others in perf's system features autodetection list.  And why wouldn't
> > adding such libraries scale?
> 
> I don't see why a decoder library and say, libelf, need to be treated
> differently.

libelf is a mature library based on an industry-wide standard, not to
mention already packaged by most (all?) distros.

> >>  The perf
> >> tools project has come up with a very cleaver way to deal with
> >> external dependencies and I don't see why the OpenCSD library should
> >> be different.
> >
> > Again, the opencsd library is a decoder library:  this patchseries adds
> > it as a package dependency (when it isn't even a package in any
> > distro), and it's different in that it's the first decoder library to
> > be submitted as an external dependency (i.e., not fully built-in, like
> > Intel's, or even the Arm SPE's pending submission).
> 
> I don't see why we absolutely need to do exactly the same as Intel.
> The library is public and this patchset neatly integrates it with the
> perf tools.

We don't, but it'd be more efficient, upstream-acceptance-wise, but as
you brought up above, we wouldn't be able to since we'd have to rewrite
libopencsd to conform to upstream codingstyle, etc., so I'm suggesting
we might look at a better enablement strategy like how the dtc works.

It'd be nice if the upstream maintainers would comment on what would be
acceptable instead of us going back and forth between each other.

> >> >> Keeping the library external will also inevitably introduce more
> >> >> source level synchronization problems because the perf sources being
> >> >> built may not be compatible with their version of the library, whether
> >> >> due to new features like new trace hardware support, or API changes.
> >> >
> >> > Perf users installing from source rather than from a package (who do
> >> > tend to the more technical side even for kernel developers) already have
> >> > to cope with potentially installing at least dwarf, gtk2, libaudit,
> >> > libbfd, libelf, libnuma, libperl, libpython, libslang, libcrypto,
> >> > libunwind, libdw-dwarf-unwind, zlib, lzma, bpf and OpenJDK depending on
> >> > which features they want.  I'm not sure that adding one more library is
> >> > going to be the end of the world here, especially once the packaging
> >> > starts to filter through distros.  Until that happens at least people
> >> > are no worse off for not having the feature.
> >>
> >> I completely agree.  Just like any other package, people that want the
> >> very latest code need to install from source.
> >
> > A fully-integrated solution would work better for people, e.g., how are
> > people supposed to know what 'latest' is when there are separate,
> > unsynchronized git repos?
> 
> The same applies to any of the other libraries perf is working with.

The packaged libraries?  They are stable:  they don't come in the form
of cloning a git repo and building from scratch.

The decoder libraries?  They are self-contained within perf.

> >> >> As Mark Brown (cc'd) mentioned on the Coresight mailing list, this may
> >> >> be able to be done the same way the dtc is incorporated into the
> >> >> kernel, where only its relevant sources are included and updated as
> >> >> needed:  see linux/scripts/dtc/update-dtc-source.sh.
> >> >
> >> > Bear in mind that we need dtc for essentially all kernel development on
> >> > ARM and when it was introduced it was a new requirement for existing
> >> > systems, it's a bit of a different case here where it's an optional
> >> > feature in an optional tool.
> >
> > That argument applies to Intel-PT, yet its decoder is self-contained
> > within perf: all non-x86 perf binaries are capable of decoding PT.
> > We'd want that for Arm Coresight where perf gets statically built to
> > run on much more constrained systems like Android.
> 
> Traces can't be decoded properly without the support of external
> libraries, whether we are talking about PT or CS.

Not true; perf has PT decoding self-contained.

Thanks,

Kim