| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20210407024452.29988-1-yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:44:52 +0800
From: Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To: acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com
Cc: Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH] perf report: Fix wrong LBR block sorting
When '--total-cycles' is specified, it supports sorting for all blocks
by 'Sampled Cycles%'. This is useful to concentrate on the globally
hottest blocks.
'Sampled Cycles%' - block sampled cycles aggregation / total sampled cycles
But in current code, it doesn't use the cycles aggregation. Part of 'cycles'
counting is possibly dropped for some overlap jumps. But for identifying
the hot block, we always need the full cycles.
# perf record -b ./triad_loop
# perf report --total-cycles --stdio
Before:
#
# Sampled Cycles% Sampled Cycles Avg Cycles% Avg Cycles [Program Block Range] Shared Object
# ............... .............. ........... .......... ...................................................................... ....................
#
0.81% 793 4.32% 793 [setup-vdso.h:34 -> setup-vdso.h:40] ld-2.27.so
0.49% 480 0.87% 160 [native_write_msr+0 -> native_write_msr+16] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.48% 476 0.52% 95 [native_read_msr+0 -> native_read_msr+29] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.31% 303 1.65% 303 [nmi_restore+0 -> nmi_restore+37] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.26% 255 1.39% 255 [nohz_balance_exit_idle+75 -> nohz_balance_exit_idle+162] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.24% 234 1.28% 234 [end_repeat_nmi+67 -> end_repeat_nmi+83] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.23% 227 1.24% 227 [__irqentry_text_end+96 -> __irqentry_text_end+126] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.20% 194 1.06% 194 [native_set_debugreg+52 -> native_set_debugreg+56] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.11% 106 0.14% 26 [native_sched_clock+0 -> native_sched_clock+98] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.10% 97 0.53% 97 [trigger_load_balance+0 -> trigger_load_balance+67] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.09% 85 0.46% 85 [get-dynamic-info.h:102 -> get-dynamic-info.h:111] ld-2.27.so
...
0.00% 92.7K 0.02% 4 [triad_loop.c:64 -> triad_loop.c:65] triad_loop
The hottest block '[triad_loop.c:64 -> triad_loop.c:65]' is not at
the top of output.
After:
# Sampled Cycles% Sampled Cycles Avg Cycles% Avg Cycles [Program Block Range] Shared Object
# ............... .............. ........... .......... ...................................................................... ....................
#
94.35% 92.7K 0.02% 4 [triad_loop.c:64 -> triad_loop.c:65] triad_loop
0.81% 793 4.32% 793 [setup-vdso.h:34 -> setup-vdso.h:40] ld-2.27.so
0.49% 480 0.87% 160 [native_write_msr+0 -> native_write_msr+16] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.48% 476 0.52% 95 [native_read_msr+0 -> native_read_msr+29] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.31% 303 1.65% 303 [nmi_restore+0 -> nmi_restore+37] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.26% 255 1.39% 255 [nohz_balance_exit_idle+75 -> nohz_balance_exit_idle+162] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.24% 234 1.28% 234 [end_repeat_nmi+67 -> end_repeat_nmi+83] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.23% 227 1.24% 227 [__irqentry_text_end+96 -> __irqentry_text_end+126] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.20% 194 1.06% 194 [native_set_debugreg+52 -> native_set_debugreg+56] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.11% 106 0.14% 26 [native_sched_clock+0 -> native_sched_clock+98] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.10% 97 0.53% 97 [trigger_load_balance+0 -> trigger_load_balance+67] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.09% 85 0.46% 85 [get-dynamic-info.h:102 -> get-dynamic-info.h:111] ld-2.27.so
0.08% 82 0.06% 11 [intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm+580 -> intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm+627] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.08% 77 0.42% 77 [lru_add_drain_cpu+0 -> lru_add_drain_cpu+133] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.08% 74 0.10% 18 [handle_pmi_common+271 -> handle_pmi_common+310] [kernel.kallsyms]
0.08% 74 0.40% 74 [get-dynamic-info.h:131 -> get-dynamic-info.h:157] ld-2.27.so
0.07% 69 0.09% 17 [intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm+432 -> intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm+468] [kernel.kallsyms]
Now the hottest block is reported at the top of output.
Fixes: b65a7d372b1a ("perf hist: Support block formats with compare/sort/display")
Signed-off-by: Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
---
tools/perf/util/block-info.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/block-info.c b/tools/perf/util/block-info.c
index 423ec69bda6c..5ecd4f401f32 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/block-info.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/block-info.c
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int block_total_cycles_pct_entry(struct perf_hpp_fmt *fmt,
double ratio = 0.0;
if (block_fmt->total_cycles)
- ratio = (double)bi->cycles / (double)block_fmt->total_cycles;
+ ratio = (double)bi->cycles_aggr / (double)block_fmt->total_cycles;
return color_pct(hpp, block_fmt->width, 100.0 * ratio);
}
@@ -216,9 +216,9 @@ static int64_t block_total_cycles_pct_sort(struct perf_hpp_fmt *fmt,
double l, r;
if (block_fmt->total_cycles) {
- l = ((double)bi_l->cycles /
+ l = ((double)bi_l->cycles_aggr /
(double)block_fmt->total_cycles) * 100000.0;
- r = ((double)bi_r->cycles /
+ r = ((double)bi_r->cycles_aggr /
(double)block_fmt->total_cycles) * 100000.0;
return (int64_t)l - (int64_t)r;
}
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists