[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2wros3pzf.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:38:12 +0100
From: Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
To: Victor Jimenez <victor.javier@....es>
Cc: Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: perf tools miscellaneous questions
Victor Jimenez <victor.javier@....es> writes:
[...]
> If you are measuring last level cache misses, I would recommend you to
> use a memory intensive application/benchmark instead of /bin/true, as
> otherwise there can be a significant variation between two runs.
I agree.
But still with intensive application, I got the same results:
$ perf stat -r3 -e cache-misses:u gzip -9 -c vmlinux.o >/dev/null
Performance counter stats for 'gzip -9 -c vmlinux.o' (3 runs):
950704 cache-misses ( +- 24.925% )
82.619412905 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.072% )
$ perf stat -r3 -e llc-load-misses:u,llc-store-misses:u gzip -9 -c vmlinux.o >/dev/null
Performance counter stats for 'gzip -9 -c vmlinux.o' (3 runs):
317054 LLC-load-misses ( +- 11.758% )
162634 LLC-store-misses ( +- 9.700% )
82.657099783 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.167% )
Thanks
--
Francis
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists