linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf stat: Print topology/time headers with --metric-only

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160520195307.GA13617@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 May 2016 12:53:07 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, acme@...nel.org,
	jolsa@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf stat: Print topology/time headers with --metric-only

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:47:38PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:43:19AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > hum, I'm getting something else:
> > > 
> > > [jolsa@...-x3650m4-01 perf]$ sudo ./perf stat --topdown -I 1000 -a
> > > nmi_watchdog enabled with topdown. May give wrong results.
> > > Disable with echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
> > > #           time core         cpus
> > >      1.001710838                   retiring             bad speculation      frontend bound       backend bound        
> > >      1.001710838 S0-C0           2     38.1%               -0.0%               58.8%                3.1%           
> > >      1.001710838 S0-C1           2     38.0%                0.0%               59.4%                2.5%           
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [jolsa@...-x3650m4-01 perf]$ sudo ./perf stat --metric-only -e cycles,instructions -a -I 1000
> > > #           time
> > >      1.000756338 insn per cycle       stalled cycles per insn 
> > >      1.000756338    0.32                                      
> > >      2.001155562    0.30                                      
> > 
> > Right sorry, that was me not cutting and pasting correctly.
> > 
> > Your output is correct and intended. 
> 
> hum, I dont think so.. headers should be on the same line, right?

I posted new patches which move it to the same line, and also
fix another bug I noticed.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only