[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBTiBHF4wZ3c_Czkh3JgvXGNWJW1LH42Jh4NG_ZJkGkbgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:50:49 +0100
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: [BUG] perf stat: explicit grouping yields unexpected results
Jiri,
I was trying the grouping support in perf stat and I was surprised
to see that if I create a group that is too big to be scheduled, and
where only N out of P events can fit, perf stat still yields counts
for the N events. I was expecting 0 counts or <not supported>.
The kernel semantic is to schedule all the events in a group or none.
Perf does something different and this is confusing. If you use explicit
grouping then I think you want to group to fail if not all the events can
be scheduled:
On an IvyBridge:
$ perf stat --g -e
'{cycles,instructions,branches,branches,branches,branches,branches}'
noploop 1
3 229 417 079 cycles
3 223 919 023 instructions # 1,00 insns per cycle
3 220 868 098 branches
3 220 868 098 branches
3 220 868 098 branches
3 220 868 098 branches
<not supported> branches
I think it should be: <not supported> for all events.
--
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