[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <526F353E.8040607@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:10:38 -0700
From: Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC: Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@...g.com.ar>, <namhyung.kim@....com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
<fweisbec@...il.com>, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: State of "perf: Add a new sort order: SORT_INCLUSIVE"
On 10/28/13 8:11 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hey Namhyung:
>>
>> Also, what's the reasoning for --cumulate not being an option under
>> perf record -g ..,<order>?
>
> Sorry, I cannot understand you. The 'perf record' just saves sample
> data (and callchains) from the ring-buffer. All the processing happens
> in 'perf report'. I can't see what you expect from the 'perf record
> --cumulate'. Am I missing something?
Yes - I meant to say perf report -g :)
> -g [type,min[,limit],order]
Specifically, along with callee, caller, we could have a third option.
Or we could have a new type (graph, fractal, cumulative).
>> Given that there are clear use cases in production involving complex
>> callgraphs, I'm for getting this support in first and then reconciling
>> the differences with perf record -b later.
>
> I think what Frederic said is that the code de-duplication of 'perf
> report' side. The branch stack and --cumulate are different - branch
> stack concentrates on the branch itself but --cumulate uses callchains
> to find parents and give some credit to them as side information.
Me too. I brought it up with Stephane at some point in the last year or
so and there wasn't an obvious way to de-duplicate because of these
differences.
-Arun
--
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