[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200217110629.GD157041@krava>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 12:06:29 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.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 v4] perf stat: Show percore counts in per CPU output
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 09:22:57AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
>
>
> On 2/17/2020 6:54 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:04:52PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > CPU1 1,009,312 cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > > CPU2 2,784,072 cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > > CPU3 2,427,922 cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > > CPU4 2,752,148 cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > > CPU6 2,784,072 cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > > CPU7 2,427,922 cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > >
> > > 1.001416041 seconds time elapsed
> > >
> > > v4:
> > > ---
> > > Ravi Bangoria reports an issue in v3. Once we offline a CPU,
> > > the output is not correct. The issue is we should use the cpu
> > > idx in print_percore_thread rather than using the cpu value.
> >
> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> >
>
> Thanks so much for ACK this patch. :)
>
> > btw, there's slight misalignment in -I output, but not due
> > to your change, it's there for some time now, and probably
> > in other agregation outputs as well:
> >
> >
> > $ sudo ./perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles/ -a -A -I 1000
> > # time CPU counts unit events
> > 1.000224464 CPU0 7,251,151 cpu/event=cpu-cycles/
> > 1.000224464 CPU1 21,614,946 cpu/event=cpu-cycles/
> > 1.000224464 CPU2 30,812,097 cpu/event=cpu-cycles/
> >
> > should be (extra space after CPUX):
> >
> > 1.000224464 CPU2 30,812,097 cpu/event=cpu-cycles/
> >
> > I'll put it on my TODO, but if you're welcome to check on it ;-)
> >
> > thanks,
> > jirka
> >
>
> I have a simple fix for this misalignment issue.
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c b/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> index bc31fccc0057..95b29c9cba36 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> @@ -114,11 +114,11 @@ static void aggr_printout(struct perf_stat_config
> *config,
> fprintf(config->output, "S%d-D%d-C%*d%s",
> cpu_map__id_to_socket(id),
> cpu_map__id_to_die(id),
> - config->csv_output ? 0 : -5,
> + config->csv_output ? 0 : -3,
> cpu_map__id_to_cpu(id), config->csv_sep);
> } else {
> - fprintf(config->output, "CPU%*d%s ",
> - config->csv_output ? 0 : -5,
> + fprintf(config->output, "CPU%*d%s",
> + config->csv_output ? 0 : -7,
> evsel__cpus(evsel)->map[id],
> config->csv_sep);
I guess that's ok, will that work with higher (3 digit) cpu numbers?
jirka
> }
>
> Following command lines are tested OK.
>
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles/ -I 1000
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles/ -a -I 1000
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles/ -a -A -I 1000
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/ -a -A -I 1000
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/ -a -A --percore-show-thread -I
> 1000
>
> Could you help to look at that?
>
> Thanks
> Jin Yao
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists