| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20141121203057.GD18625@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:30:57 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Implement lbr-as-callgraph v10
Em Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 04:33:47PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:48:22PM +0100, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > > > directory since I'm comparing the output of --stdio, --tui and --gtk,
> > > > since it looks --gtk is wrong, still unsure about what the problem is in
> > > > that case, but stumbled on:
> > > I need to investigate this further, so I created a perf/branch-history
> > > branch that has the patches I need to test more rebased on top of my
> > > perf/core branch I just pushed out to Ingo.
> > I tested --gtk and I don't see any differences to the console mode
> > with --branch-history. What problem do you see?
> The difference is with --tui, but I haven't checked if this is a problem
> introduced by your patchkit or if this is something that was there
> before it was applied.
So, here it is, --gtk looks like --stdio:
$ perf report --no-children --branch-history --stdio
# Samples: 43 of event 'cycles'
# Event count (approx.): 26843162
#
# Overhead Source:Line Symbol Shared Object
# ........ ........... ......................... ................
#
68.42% tcall.c:5 [.] f2 tcall
|
|--87.65%-- f2 tcall.c:4
| |
| |--67.41%-- f1 tcall.c:10
| | f1 tcall.c:9
| | main tcall.c:17
| | main tcall.c:17
| | main tcall.c:16
| | main tcall.c:16
| | f1 tcall.c:12
| | f1 tcall.c:12
| | f2 tcall.c:6
| | f2 tcall.c:4
| | f1 tcall.c:11
| | f1 tcall.c:11
| | f2 tcall.c:6
| | f2 tcall.c:4
| | f1 tcall.c:10
| |
| --32.59%-- f1 tcall.c:11
| f1 tcall.c:11
| f1 tcall.c:11
| f2 tcall.c:6
| f2 tcall.c:4
| f1 tcall.c:10
| f1 tcall.c:9
| main tcall.c:17
| main tcall.c:17
| main tcall.c:16
| main tcall.c:16
| f1 tcall.c:12
| f1 tcall.c:12
| f2 tcall.c:6
| f2 tcall.c:4
| f1 tcall.c:11
|
--12.35%-- f1 tcall.c:9
main tcall.c:17
main tcall.c:17
main tcall.c:16
main tcall.c:16
f1 tcall.c:12
f1 tcall.c:12
f2 tcall.c:6
f2 tcall.c:4
f1 tcall.c:11
f1 tcall.c:11
f2 tcall.c:6
f2 tcall.c:4
f1 tcall.c:10
f1 tcall.c:9
main tcall.c:17
<SNIP>
But:
$ perf report --no-children --branch-history --tui
# Then expand a few callchains and press 'P' to generate a perf.hist.0
# file:
- 68.42% tcall.c:5 [.] f2 tcall
- f2 tcall.c:4
- 67.41% f1 tcall.c:10
f1 tcall.c:9
main tcall.c:17
main tcall.c:17
main tcall.c:16
main tcall.c:16
f1 tcall.c:12
f1 tcall.c:12
f2 tcall.c:6
f2 tcall.c:4
f1 tcall.c:11
f1 tcall.c:11
f2 tcall.c:6
f2 tcall.c:4
f1 tcall.c:10
- 32.59% f1 tcall.c:11
f1 tcall.c:11
f2 tcall.c:6
f2 tcall.c:4
f1 tcall.c:10
f1 tcall.c:9
main tcall.c:17
main tcall.c:17
main tcall.c:16
main tcall.c:16
f1 tcall.c:12
f1 tcall.c:12
f2 tcall.c:6
f2 tcall.c:4
f1 tcall.c:11
f1 tcall.c:9
main tcall.c:17
main tcall.c:17
main tcall.c:16
main tcall.c:16
f1 tcall.c:12
f1 tcall.c:12
f2 tcall.c:6
f2 tcall.c:4
f1 tcall.c:11
f1 tcall.c:11
f2 tcall.c:6
f2 tcall.c:4
f1 tcall.c:10
f1 tcall.c:9
main tcall.c:17
<SNIP>
Do you see the diff? The 87.65% and 12.35% doesn't appear on the --tui
output.
But I don't know if this is due to your patchkit, trying to check.
- 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