[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1408067834.1679.15.camel@leonhard>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:57:14 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>,
Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@...g.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf callchain: Prune misleading callchains for
self entries
Hi Jiri,
2014-08-14 (목), 16:10 +0200, Jiri Olsa:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:01:40PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > However, with --children feature added, it now can show all callees of
> > the entry. For example, "start_kernel" entry now can display it calls
> > rest_init and in turn cpu_idle and then cpuidle_idle_call (95.72%).
> >
> > 6.14% 0.00% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] start_kernel
> > |
> > --- start_kernel
> > rest_init
> > cpu_idle
> > |
> > |--97.52%-- cpuidle_idle_call
> > | cpuidle_enter_tk
> > | |
> > | |--99.91%-- cpuidle_wrap_enter
> > | | cpuidle_enter
> > | | intel_idle
> > | --0.09%-- [...]
> > --2.48%-- [...]
> >
> > Note that start_kernel has no self overhead - meaning that it never
> > get sampled by itself but constructs such a nice callgraph. But,
> > sadly, if an entry has self overhead, callchain will get confused with
> > generated callchain (like above) and self callchains (which reversed
> > order) like the eariler example.
> >
> > To be consistent with other entries, I'd like to make it just to show
> > a single entry - itself - like below since it doesn't have callees
> > (children) at all. But still use the whole callchain to construct
> > children entries (like the start_kernel) as usual.
> >
> > 40.53% 40.53% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] intel_idle
> > |
> > --- intel_idle
>
> I understand the consistency point, but I think we'd loose
> usefull info by cutting this off
>
> I guess I can run 'report -g callee' to find out who called intel_idle
> instead.. but I would not need to if the callchain stays here
Yeah, but current behavior intermixes caller-callchains and
callee-callchains together so adds confusion to users. This is a
problem IMHO.
And with --children you can easily see the callers right above the entry
as they likely to have same or higher children overhead.
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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