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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:28:51 +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 11/29/2018 6:13 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:24:27PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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?
> 
> well I did not add it, it's been always there, it just must
> have been real quick for you so u did not notice I guess
> 

Yes, I think so. :)

> it's strange, because for me the resorting takes much longer
> even for small data.. let's have your patchset applied and
> have this discussion when I send out the patches
> 

That's fine! I will post v5 soon.

Thanks
Jin Yao

> thanks,
> jirka
>