linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] perf report/annotate: Support average IPC and IPC coverage for function

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

Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:24:27 +0800
From:   "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] perf report/annotate: Support average IPC and IPC
 coverage for function



On 11/28/2018 6:18 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:17:57AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:14:55PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
>>> Add supporting of displaying the average IPC and IPC coverage
>>> percentage per function.
>>>
>>> For example,
>>>
>>> $ perf record -b ...
>>> $ perf report -s symbol or
>>>    perf report -s symbol --stdio
>>>
>>> Overhead  Symbol                           IPC   [IPC Coverage]
>>>    39.60%  [.] __random                     2.30  [ 54.8%]
>>>    18.02%  [.] main                         0.43  [ 54.3%]
>>>    14.21%  [.] compute_flag                 2.29  [100.0%]
>>>    14.16%  [.] rand                         0.36  [100.0%]
>>>     7.06%  [.] __random_r                   2.57  [ 70.5%]
>>>     6.85%  [.] rand@plt                     0.00  [  0.0%]
>>>    ...
>>>
>>> $ perf annotate --stdio2
>>>
>>> Percent  IPC Cycle (Average IPC: 2.30, IPC Coverage: 54.8%)
>>>
>>>                          Disassembly of section .text:
>>>
>>>                          000000000003aac0 <random@@GLIBC_2.2.5>:
>>>    8.32  3.28              sub    $0x18,%rsp
>>>          3.28              mov    $0x1,%esi
>>>          3.28              xor    %eax,%eax
>>>          3.28              cmpl   $0x0,argp_program_version_hook@@GLIBC_2.2.5+0x1e0
>>>   11.57  3.28     1      ↓ je     20
>>>                            lock   cmpxchg %esi,__abort_msg@@GLIBC_PRIVATE+0x8a0
>>>                          ↓ jne    29
>>>                          ↓ jmp    43
>>>   11.57  1.10        20:   cmpxchg %esi,__abort_msg@@GLIBC_PRIVATE+0x8a0
>>>   ...
>>>
>>> v3:
>>> ---
>>>      Remove the sortkey "ipc" from command-line. The columns "IPC"
>>>      and "[IPC Coverage]" are automatically enabled when "symbol"
>>>      is specified.
>>>
>>>      Patch "perf report: Display average IPC and IPC coverage per symbol"
>>>      is impacted.
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> ---
>>>    1. Merge in Jiri's patch to support stdio mode
>>>
>>>    2. Add a new patch "perf annotate: Create a annotate2 flag
>>>       in struct symbol" which records if the symbol has been
>>>       annotated yet.
>>>
>>>    3. Minor update such as adding { } for multiline code in 'if'
>>>       condition.
>>>
>>> Jin Yao (3):
>>>    perf annotate: Compute average IPC and IPC coverage per symbol
>>>    perf annotate: Create a annotate2 flag in struct symbol
>>>    perf report: Display average IPC and IPC coverage per symbol
>>
>> hi,
>> I took he liberty and moved the annotation retrieval into
>> resort phase under progress bar scope. It's currently on top
>> of my perf/fixes branch, could you please check it?
>>
>>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git
> 
> commits:
> 7f3ffdb9783f perf tools: Move symbol annotation to resort
> e87f7d3c4f10 perf tools: Add perf_evsel__output_resort_cb function
> 40012b422108 perf tools: Add argument to hists__resort_cb_t callback
> 
> jirka
> 

Hi Jiri,

Thanks for your patches. I have tested with your repo. Now I can see 2 
progress bars. One is displayed at the events processing phase, the 
other is displayed at resorting phase.

I have only one concern that is, in my test, much of time is consumed by 
the event processing phase, for example, 90% of time. Only 10% of time 
is consumed at resorting phase.

So do we really need the second progress bar?

Thanks
Jin Yao