[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <77282.1275338942@localhost>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 16:49:02 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf stat: add perf stat -B to pretty print large numbers
On Mon, 31 May 2010 21:30:36 +0200, Stephane Eranian said:
> >> instance LC_NUMERIC=en_US.UTF8. You need to pass -B to activate this
>>> feature. This way existing scripts parsing the output do not need to be
>>> changed. Here is an example.
Two examples, actually...
>>>
>>> $ perf stat noploop 2
>>> noploop for 2 seconds
>>>
>>> Performance counter stats for 'noploop 2':
>>>
>>> 1998.347031 task-clock-msecs # 0.998 CPUs
>>> 61 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec
>>> 0 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec
>>> 118 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec
>>> 4,138,410,900 cycles # 2070.917 M/sec (scaled from 70.01%)
>>> 2,062,650,268 instructions # 0.498 IPC (scaled from 70.01%)
>>> 2,057,653,466 branches # 1029.678 M/sec (scaled from 70.01%)
>>> 40,267 branch-misses # 0.002 % (scaled from 30.04%)
>>> 2,055,961,348 cache-references # 1028.831 M/sec (scaled from 30.03%)
>>> 53,725 cache-misses # 0.027 M/sec (scaled from 30.02%)
>>>
>>> 2.001393933 seconds time elapsed
>>>
>>> $ perf stat -B noploop 2
>>> noploop for 2 seconds
>>>
>>> Performance counter stats for 'noploop 2':
>>>
>>> 1998.297883 task-clock-msecs # 0.998 CPUs
>>> 59 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec
>>> 0 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec
>>> 119 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec
>>> 4,131,380,160 cycles # 2067.450 M/sec (scaled from 70.01%)
>>> 2,059,096,507 instructions # 0.498 IPC (scaled from 70.01%)
>>> 2,054,681,303 branches # 1028.216 M/sec (scaled from 70.01%)
>>> 25,650 branch-misses # 0.001 % (scaled from 30.05%)
>>> 2,056,283,014 cache-references # 1029.017 M/sec (scaled from 30.03%)
>>> 47,097 cache-misses # 0.024 M/sec (scaled from 30.02%)
>>>
>>> 2.001391016 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> Is it me, or did -B not make any difference for these two examples?
>> I'm confused.
> Did you set the LC_NUMERIC environement variable?
I meant I was reading the two examples given, and I'm seeing commas in
the same places, -B or not -B. I was sort of expecting that the first
example wouldn't have commas in it, or something? Or were those two
examples *supposed* to be identical, and there's a not-shown 3rd example
that shows what you get if you use -B and set the LC_NUMERIC variable?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists