[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111026111828.GB9467@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:18:28 -0200
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
To: Deng-Cheng Zhu <dczhu@...s.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] tools/perf: Make group_fd static and move its
place in __perf_evsel__open()
Em Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 02:26:03PM +0800, Deng-Cheng Zhu escreveu:
> On 10/25/2011 11:23 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >Em Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:03:28PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >>Em Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 06:57:00PM +0800, Deng-Cheng Zhu escreveu:
> >>>__perf_evsel__open() is called per event, it does not work for all the
> >>>grouped events at one time. So, currently group_fd will alway be -1 for
<SNIP>
> >>>+ static int group_fd = -1;
> >>> if (!evsel->cgrp)
> >>> pid = threads->map[thread];
> >>Lets not do it that way, using statics for this is humm, ugly, IMHO.
> >Can you try this patch?
> >I tested it with:
> >[root@...lia ~]# perf top -e cycles -e instructions --group
> Your patch does fix the group fd issue. But to get event grouping
> workable, the event state fix is still needed. Please see the discussion
Can I have your "Reviewed-by:" or "Tested-by:" tag for this patch then?
> here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/mips/msg42190.html
> With _only_ your patch applied, I tested with the following commands on
> MIPS 74K (4 counters available in total):
>
> perf stat -g -e
> L1-dcache-load-misses,cycles,LLC-load-misses,iTLB-loads,instructions
> find / >/dev/null
>
> I tried to group up to 5 events in the hope of seeing NOSPC error. But
> the command didn't fail and output:
>
> Performance counter stats for 'find /':
>
> 9300823 L1-dcache-load-misses
> <not counted> cycles
> <not counted> LLC-load-misses
> <not counted> iTLB-loads
> <not counted> instructions
>
> 8.463207591 seconds time elapsed
>
> This is due to the event state check in validate_group() filtering out
> the grouped events in OFF state. They are in OFF state because we are
> running the command with the perf tool as opposed to attaching to an
> existing task:
>
> builtin-stat.c:create_perf_stat_counter():
>
> if (target_pid == -1 && target_tid == -1) {
> attr->disabled = 1;
> attr->enable_on_exec = 1;
> }
But they should be in OFF state only till the target program gets
exec'ed, right?
> I suppose X86 has this issue too -- collect_events() in validate_group()
> won't do real work in the bottom half of the function.
I'm testing that now.
- Arnaldo
--
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