linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tools: Record total sampling time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:57:09 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@....fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tools: Record total sampling time


So basically, in the end I think it should be possible to have the 
following behavior:

   perf record -a -e cycles sleep 1

   perf report stat              # Reports as if we ran: 'perf stat -a -e cycles sleep 1'
   perf report                   # Reports the usual histogram

   perf report --stat            # Reports the perf stat output and the histogram

or so.

i.e. a perf.data file would by default always carry enough information 
to enable the extraction of the 'perf stat' data.

At that point visualizing it is purely report-time logic, it does not 
need any record-time options.

This would work for multi-event sampling as well, if we do:

   perf record -a -e cycles -e branches sleep 1

then 'perf report stat' would output the same as:

 $ perf stat -e cycles -e branches -a sleep 1

 Performance counter stats for 'system wide':

        34,174,518      cycles                    [100.00%]
         3,155,677      branches                                                    

       1.000802852 seconds time elapsed

Another neat feature this kind of workflo enables is the integration 
of --repeat to perf record, so something like:

    perf record --repeat 3 -a -e cycles -e branches sleep 1

would save 3 samples after each other, and would allow extraction of 
the statistical stability of the measurement, and 'perf report stat' 
would print the same result as a raw perf stat run would:

 $ perf stat --repeat 3 -e cycles -e branches -e instructions -a sleep 1

 Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (3 runs):

    28,975,150,642      cycles                     ( +-  0.43% ) [100.00%]
    10,740,235,371      branches                                                      ( +-  0.47% ) [100.00%]
    44,535,464,754      instructions              #    1.54  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.47% )

       1.005718027 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.43% )

Or something like that. At that point we share reporting between perf 
stat and perf report, no special ad-hoc options are needed to just 
measure and report timestamps, it would all be a 'natural' side effect 
of having perf stat.

What do you think?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/