[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BD3A5CA5-B566-4FD9-9409-0329CC322060@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:34:50 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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>,
"Paul A . Clarke" <pc@...ibm.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] perf test: Workload test of metric and metricgroups
On January 12, 2022 9:24:29 AM GMT-03:00, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
>On 24/09/2021 20:09, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 11:42:39AM -0700, Ian Rogers escreveu:
>>> Test every metric and metricgroup with 'true' as a workload. For
>>> metrics, check that we see the metric printed or get unsupported. If the
>>> 'true' workload executes too quickly retry with 'perf bench internals
>>> synthesize'.
>>>
>>> v3. Fix test condition (thanks to Paul A. Clarke<pc@...ibm.com>). Add a
>>> fallback case of a larger workload so that we don't ignore "<not
>>> counted>".
>>> v2. Switched the workload to something faster.
>
>Hi Ian,
>
>I just noticed that this test fails on my broadwell machine.
>
>I am using acme perf/core @ 09dd3c22daaf
Hi,
Can you try with tmp.perf/perf_cpu instead?
There's a patch there that maybe fixes this.
- Arnaldo
>
>metricgroup Memory_Bw fails, and it seems because of the "true" argument
>to "perf stat" (or any argument, like sleep 1):
>
>john@...alhost:~/kernel-dev9/tools/perf> sudo ./perf stat -M Memory_BW
>^C
> Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
>
> 2,184 arb/event=0x84,umask=0x1/ # 0.26
>DRAM_BW_Use
> 2,954,938 arb/event=0x81,umask=0x1/
>
> 736,368,852 ns duration_time
>
> 58,202,980 l1d_pend_miss.pending_cycles # 2.34 MLP
> (80.11%)
> 136,293,194 l1d_pend_miss.pending
> (19.89%)
> 736,368,852 ns duration_time
>
> 1,065,656 longest_lat_cache.miss # 0.09
>L3_Cache_Fill_BW (39.71%)
> 736,368,852 ns duration_time
>
> 5,365,477 l2_lines_in.all # 0.47
>L2_Cache_Fill_BW (59.80%)
> 736,368,852 ns duration_time
>
> 3,557,362 l1d.replacement # 0.31
>L1D_Cache_Fill_BW (79.90%)
> 736,368,852 ns duration_time
>
>
> 0.736368852 seconds time elapsed
>
>
>john@...alhost:~/kernel-dev9/tools/perf> sudo ./perf stat -M Memory_BW true
>Error:
>The sys_perf_event_open() syscall returned with 22 (Invalid argument)
>for event (arb/event=0x84,umask=0x1/).
>/bin/dmesg | grep -i perf may provide additional information.
>
>john@...alhost:~/kernel-dev9/tools/perf>
>
>Anyone any idea on this before I start digging?
>
>Thanks,
>John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists