[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161124234522.GA20128@krava>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:45:22 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"wangnan0@...wei.com" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] perf tools: show NMI overhead
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 08:20:13AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:27:21PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 01:37:04PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:44:44AM -0500, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> > > > > From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Caculate the total NMI overhead on each CPU, and display them in perf
> > > > > report
> > > >
> > > > so the output looks like this:
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > # Elapsed time: 1720167944 ns
> > > > # Overhead:
> > > > # CPU 6
> > > > # NMI#: 27 time: 111379 ns
> > > > # Multiplexing#: 0 time: 0 ns
> > > > # SB#: 57 time: 90045 ns
> > > > #
> > > > # Samples: 26 of event 'cycles:u'
> > > > # Event count (approx.): 1677531
> > > > #
> > > > # Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> > > > # ........ ....... ................ .......................
> > > > #
> > > > 24.20% ls ls [.] _init
> > > > 17.18% ls libc-2.24.so [.] __strcoll_l
> > > > 11.85% ls ld-2.24.so [.] _dl_relocate_object
> > > > ---
> >
> > how about we display the overhead information same way the main perf output:
> >
> > CPU NMI NMI time MTX MTX time SB SB time
> > ... ..... ........ ..... ........ ...... ........
> > 6 27 111379 0 0 57 90045
> >
> >
> > would be just matter of adding new sort objects
>
> How would you connect those to hist entries then? It'd be possible if
> the sort key had 'cpu' only, no?
right, I should have said fields then..
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists