[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131202125709.GA22404@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:57:09 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@....fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tools: Record total sampling time
So basically, in the end I think it should be possible to have the
following behavior:
perf record -a -e cycles sleep 1
perf report stat # Reports as if we ran: 'perf stat -a -e cycles sleep 1'
perf report # Reports the usual histogram
perf report --stat # Reports the perf stat output and the histogram
or so.
i.e. a perf.data file would by default always carry enough information
to enable the extraction of the 'perf stat' data.
At that point visualizing it is purely report-time logic, it does not
need any record-time options.
This would work for multi-event sampling as well, if we do:
perf record -a -e cycles -e branches sleep 1
then 'perf report stat' would output the same as:
$ perf stat -e cycles -e branches -a sleep 1
Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
34,174,518 cycles [100.00%]
3,155,677 branches
1.000802852 seconds time elapsed
Another neat feature this kind of workflo enables is the integration
of --repeat to perf record, so something like:
perf record --repeat 3 -a -e cycles -e branches sleep 1
would save 3 samples after each other, and would allow extraction of
the statistical stability of the measurement, and 'perf report stat'
would print the same result as a raw perf stat run would:
$ perf stat --repeat 3 -e cycles -e branches -e instructions -a sleep 1
Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (3 runs):
28,975,150,642 cycles ( +- 0.43% ) [100.00%]
10,740,235,371 branches ( +- 0.47% ) [100.00%]
44,535,464,754 instructions # 1.54 insns per cycle ( +- 0.47% )
1.005718027 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.43% )
Or something like that. At that point we share reporting between perf
stat and perf report, no special ad-hoc options are needed to just
measure and report timestamps, it would all be a 'natural' side effect
of having perf stat.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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