[PATCH v7 2/2] perf cs-etm: Split --dump-raw-trace by AUX records

[Mathieu Poirier]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 08:08:02PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:38:34AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > >>  static int cs_etm__process_auxtrace_event(struct perf_session *session,
> > >>  					  union perf_event *event,
> > >>  					  struct perf_tool *tool __maybe_unused)
> > >> @@ -2462,7 +2478,8 @@ static int cs_etm__process_auxtrace_event(struct perf_session *session,
> > >>  				cs_etm__dump_event(etm, buffer);
> > >>  				auxtrace_buffer__put_data(buffer);
> > >>  			}
> > >> -	}
> > >> +	} else if (dump_trace)
> > >> +		dump_queued_data(etm, &event->auxtrace);
> > > 
> > > IIUC, in the function cs_etm__process_auxtrace_event(), since
> > > "etm->data_queued" is always true, below flow will never run:
> > > 
> > >     if (!etm->data_queued) {
> > >         ......
> > > 
> > >         if (dump_trace)
> > >             if (auxtrace_buffer__get_data(buffer, fd)) {
> > >                     cs_etm__dump_event(etm, buffer);
> > >                     auxtrace_buffer__put_data(buffer);
> > >             }
> > >     }
> > > 
> > > If so, it's better to use a new patch to polish the code.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Leo,
> > 
> > I think this is not true in piped mode because there is no auxtrace index.
> > In that mode, events are processed only in file order and cs_etm__process_auxtrace_event()
> > is called for each buffer.
> > 
> > You can reproduce this with something like this:
> > 
> >      ./perf record -o - ls > stdio.data
> >      cat stdio.data | ./perf report -i -
> 
> You are right!  I tried these two commands with cs_etm event, just as
> you said, in this case, the AUX trace data is not queued; so the flow
> for "if (!etm->data_queued)" should be kept.  If so, I am very fine
> for current change.  Thanks for sharing the knowledge.
> 
> > There are some other Coresight features that don't work as expected in this mode, like
> > sorting timestamps between CPUs. The aux split patchset won't work either because random
> > access isn't possible. And the TRBE patch that I'm working on now won't work, because it
> > also requires the random access to lookup the flags on the AUX record to configure the 
> > decoder for unformatted trace.
>

There is a lot of things happening in this area.  Based on the above should I
still plan to review this set or should I wait for another revision?

Thanks,
Mathieu

> Cool, looking forward for the patches :)
> 
> Leo