linux-kernel - Re: [QUESTION]perf stat: comment of miss ratio

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]

Message-ID: <71f30f49-d8b4-abff-9f75-674dcbb7fad0@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:45:54 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "liuqi (BA)" <liuqi115@...ilicon.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        huangdaode <huangdaode@...ilicon.com>,
        linyunsheng <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [QUESTION]perf stat: comment of miss ratio

On 09/11/2019 02:47, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>     Relevant code is checked to make sure that the ratio is calculated by
>>
>>     L1-dcache-load-misses/L1-dcache-loads, data "7.58%=30249/399189*100%" also
>>
>>     proves this conclusion.
>>
>>     So, I'm not sure why we use "of all L1-dcache hits" here to describe miss
>>     ratio,
> 
> Yes you're right it should be "of all L1-dcache accesses"
> 
> Please send a patch to fix the string and also check if this isn't wrong with some other
> ratio too.
> 

"    399,189      L1-dcache-loads           #  246.396 M/sec
      30,249      L1-dcache-load-misses     #    7.58% of all L1-dcache 
hits    (18.04%)"


If accesses and loads are equivalent, could we use consistent terminology?

Thanks,
John