[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160908161857.GA4801@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:18:57 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, eranian@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davidcc@...gle.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
kan.liang@...el.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] perf/annotate: Add branch stack / basic block
information
Em Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 06:36:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 06:27:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking of filtering all targets and branches that are
> > smaller than 0.1% in order to avoid this, but so far I've just been
> > ignoring these things.
>
> Like so... seems to 'work'.
So I merged this one with 7/7 and this is the result, screenshot to
capture the colors:
http://vger.kernel.org/~acme/perf/annotate_basic_blocks.png
Please let me know if I should go ahead and push with the combined
patch, that is now at:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/commit/?h=perf/annotate_basic_blocks&id=baf41a43fa439ac534d21e41882a7858d5cee1e5
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git perf/annotate_basic_blocks
Is that ok?
The problem with it is that it is done only for --stdio, I'll check how
to properly make it UI agnostic...
- Arnaldo
> ---
> tools/perf/util/annotate.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
> index 8eeb151..c78b16f0 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
> @@ -907,6 +907,7 @@ static void annotate__branch_printf(struct block_range *br, u64 addr)
> #if 1
> if (br->is_target && br->start == addr) {
> struct block_range *branch = br;
> + double p;
>
> /*
> * Find matching branch to our target.
> @@ -914,31 +915,37 @@ static void annotate__branch_printf(struct block_range *br, u64 addr)
> while (!branch->is_branch)
> branch = block_range__next(branch);
>
> - if (emit_comment) {
> - emit_comment = false;
> - printf("\t#");
> - }
> + p = 100 *(double)br->entry / branch->coverage;
>
> - /*
> - * The percentage of coverage joined at this target in relation
> - * to the next branch.
> - */
> - printf(" +%.2f%%", 100*(double)br->entry / branch->coverage);
> + if (p > 0.1) {
> + if (emit_comment) {
> + emit_comment = false;
> + printf("\t#");
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * The percentage of coverage joined at this target in relation
> + * to the next branch.
> + */
> + printf(" +%.2f%%", p);
> + }
> }
> #endif
> if (br->is_branch && br->end == addr) {
> + double p = 100*(double)br->taken / br->coverage;
>
> - if (emit_comment) {
> - emit_comment = false;
> - printf("\t#");
> - }
> + if (p > 0.1) {
> + if (emit_comment) {
> + emit_comment = false;
> + printf("\t#");
> + }
>
> - /*
> - * The percentage of coverage leaving at this branch, and
> - * its prediction ratio.
> - */
> - printf(" -%.2f%% / %.2f%%", 100*(double)br->taken / br->coverage,
> - 100*(double)br->pred / br->taken);
> + /*
> + * The percentage of coverage leaving at this branch, and
> + * its prediction ratio.
> + */
> + printf(" -%.2f%% (p:%.2f%%)", p, 100*(double)br->pred / br->taken);
> + }
> }
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists