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  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:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:02:52 +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 v4] perf stat: Show percore counts in per CPU output



On 2/17/2020 7:06 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> 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
> 

Yes, it works with hundreds of CPU. I have tested with that case.

BTW, do you need me to post a separate patch or you will add this fix in 
your patch series?

Thanks
Jin Yao

>>                  }
>>
>> 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