[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180327090642.GP13724@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:06:42 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf stat: avoid 10ms limit for printing event counts
> When running perf stat -I for monitoring e.g. PCIe uncore counters and
> at the same time profiling some I/O workload by perf record e.g. for
> cpu-cycles and context switches, it is then possible to build and
> observe good-enough consolidated CPU/OS/IO(Uncore) performance picture
> for that workload.
At some point I still hope we can make uncore measurements in
perf record work. Kan tried at some point to allow multiple
PMUs in a group, but was not successfull. But perhaps we
can sample them from a software event instead.
>
> The warning on possible runtime overhead is still preserved, however
> it is only visible when specifying -v option.
I would print it unconditionally. Very few people use -v.
BTW better of course would be to occasionally measure the perf stat
cpu time and only print the warning if it's above some percentage
of a CPU. But that would be much more work.
Rest looks ok.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists