| 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: <240f3e20-f76e-19e5-dcb4-4f36cbbbb999@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:57:13 +0900
From: Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@...il.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] perf annotate: Fix wrong --show-total-period
option showing number of samples
Hello Arnaldo :)
On 07/26/2017 01:17 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:53:28AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
>> On 07/25/2017 11:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>> Moreover there is the below case that is not aligned due to big period
>>>> values.
>
>>> So, that "moreover" means its not just one patch, but at least two, i.e.
>>> when one selects show-total-period we better have more space for that
>>> column, right?
>
>> I got it. will separate this patch.
>
> Ok, please continue your work from my perf/core branch that I just
> pushed, in it the latest patch is this one:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/commit/?h=perf/core&id=143e9656aec7c61b9b8e134da5abc5dfb6133cbf
>
> Which is a chunk of what you done below. More comments below.
>
Yes sir, :)
I fetched and checked it.
>>> I'll break the patch below accordingly.
>>>
>>> And even then, there is one question left, see below
>>>
>>>> perf annotate --stdio -i milian.data --show-total-period
>>>> Percent | Source code & Disassembly of test for cycles:ppp (1442
>>>> samples)
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> : Disassembly of section .text:
>>>> ...
>>>> 0 : 40089d: pxor %xmm1,%xmm1
>>>> 27288350 : 4008a1: cvtsi2sd %rsi,%xmm1
>>>> 0 : 4008a6: pxor %xmm5,%xmm5
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, I made a patch like below:
> <SNIP>
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
>>>> @@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ static int disasm_line__print(struct disasm_line *dl,
>>>> struct symbol *sym, u64 st
>>>> color = get_percent_color(percent);
>>>>
>>>> if (symbol_conf.show_total_period)
>>>> - color_fprintf(stdout, color, " %7" PRIu64,
>>>> + color_fprintf(stdout, color, " %11" PRIu64,
>>>> sample.period);
>>>
>>> this part will be in a separate patch, i.e. something like:
>>>
>>> [PATCH] Widen "Period" column when using --show-total-period
>>>
>>
>> ok.
>>
>>>> else
>>>> color_fprintf(stdout, color, " %7.2f",
>>>> percent);
>>>> @@ -1173,6 +1173,10 @@ static int disasm_line__print(struct disasm_line *dl,
>>>> struct symbol *sym, u64 st
>>>> if (perf_evsel__is_group_event(evsel))
>>>> width *= evsel->nr_members;
>>>>
>>>> + if (symbol_conf.show_total_period)
>>>> + width += perf_evsel__is_group_event(evsel) ?
>>>> + 4 * evsel->nr_members : 4;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> But what about this one? What is that '4' for? Not obvious at first
>>> sight, can you elaborate on the need for this specific one?
>>>
>>
>> Yep, if you check the above code lines, like below:
>>
>> color_fprintf(stdout, color, " %11" PRIu64,
>> sample.period);
>>
>> The above number of letters is 12
>> i.e. 12 = 1 (" ": white space) + 11 (digits of sample.period)
>>
>> So, I used '4', because the 'width' variable is initialized as '8'.
>
> Think that I am 7 years old :o) I'm still not understanding this
> logic...
>
Humm.. first of all, we can check the 'width' variable in two function
disasm_line__print() and symbol__annotate_printf() like below:
1063 static int disasm_line__print(struct disasm_line *dl, struct symbol
*sym, u64 start,
1064 struct perf_evsel *evsel, u64 len, int
min_pcnt, int printed,
1065 int max_lines, struct disasm_line *queue)
1066 {
...
1167 else {
1168 int width = 8;
1169
1170 if (queue)
1171 return -1;
1172
1173 if (perf_evsel__is_group_event(evsel))
1174 width *= evsel->nr_members;
1175
1176 if (!*dl->line)
1177 printf(" %*s:\n", width, " ");
1178 else
1179 printf(" %*s: %s\n", width, " ", dl->line);
And,
1794 int symbol__annotate_printf(struct symbol *sym, struct map *map,
1795 struct perf_evsel *evsel, bool full_paths,
1796 int min_pcnt, int max_lines, int context)
1797 {
...
1809 int width = 8;
...
1823 if (perf_evsel__is_group_event(evsel))
1824 width *= evsel->nr_members;
1825
1826 graph_dotted_len = printf(" %-*.*s| Source code &
Disassembly of %s for %s (%" PRIu64 " samples)\n",
1827 width, width,
symbol_conf.show_total_period ? "Event count" : "Percent",
1828 d_filename, evsel_name,
h->nr_samples);
As you can see, currently the 'width' variables are set as 8 letters
But I adjust the width as 12 letters for the first column " Event count"
and period value.
So I do witdh += 4 for 12 letters like below:
$ perf annotate --stdio --show-total-period -i hex2u64
Event count | Source code & Disassembly of old for cycles:ppp (102
samples)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
: Disassembly of section .text:
:
: 0000000000400816 <get_cond_maxprice>:
: get_cond_maxprice():
1950346 : 400816: push %rbp
741848 : 400817: mov %rsp,%rbp
We don't need to adjust the 'width' for --show-total-period ?
>> Additionally this patch handle the width for group event like below:
>>
>> $ perf annotate --show-total-period -i group_events.data --stdio
>> Event count | Source code & Disassembly of old for
>> cycles (529 samples)
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> :
>> :
>> :
>> : Disassembly of section .text:
>> :
>> : 0000000000400816
>> <get_cond_maxprice>:
>> : get_cond_maxprice():
>> 0 0 7144 : 400816: push %rbp
>> 3480988 0 5709 : 400817: mov %rsp,%rbp
>> 0 0 7522 : 40081a: mov %edi,-0x24(%rbp)
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I repeatedly failed to adjust a proper patch unit..
>> I'll remake this patches based on your comment,
>> and resend next patchset !
>
> It is not a problem, you're making progress, thanks for taking into
> accoutn my comments.
>
> The end result may be the same, but having a good patch granularity is
> fundamental for bisecting, also for maintainers to cherry-pick parts of
> your work that they agree on while making comments about parts that
> looks wrong or needing some more work.
>
Thanks for your advice !!
- Taeung
>>>> if (!*dl->line)
>>>> printf(" %*s:\n", width, " ");
>>>> else
>>>> @@ -1823,8 +1827,14 @@ int symbol__annotate_printf(struct symbol *sym,
>>>> struct map *map,
>>>> if (perf_evsel__is_group_event(evsel))
>>>> width *= evsel->nr_members;
>>>>
>>>> + if (symbol_conf.show_total_period)
>>>> + width += perf_evsel__is_group_event(evsel) ?
>>>> + 4 * evsel->nr_members : 4;
>>>
>>> What about this one?
>>>
>>
>> ditto.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> graph_dotted_len = printf(" %-*.*s| Source code & Disassembly
>>>> of %s for %s (%" PRIu64 " samples)\n",
>>>> - width, width, "Percent", d_filename, evsel_name,
>>>> h->nr_samples);
>>>> + width, width,
>>>> + symbol_conf.show_total_period ? "Event
>>>> count" : "Percent",
>>>> + d_filename, evsel_name, h->nr_samples);
>>>>
>>>
>>> this one will be in a separate patch, with the title you chose:
>>>
>>> [PATCH] perf annotate: Show the proper header when using --show-total-period
>>>
>>
>> ok.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Taeung
>>
>>>> printf("%-*.*s----\n",
>>>> graph_dotted_len, graph_dotted_len, graph_dotted_line);
>>>>
>>>
>>> - Arnaldo
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists