[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb056314-70eb-48f0-ab00-6b13209adb02@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:44:00 +0100
From: Mark Barnett <mark.barnett@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com, ben.gainey@....com, deepak.surti@....com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, will@...nel.org, james.clark@....com,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] A mechanism for efficient support for per-function
metrics
On 4/9/25 15:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 06:15:25PM +0100, mark.barnett@....com wrote:
>
>> perf record -T --sample-cpu --call-graph fp,4 --user-callchains \
>> -k CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW \
>> -e '{cycles/period=999700,alt-period=300/,instructions,branch-misses,cache-references,cache-misses}:uS' \
>> benchmark 0 1
>
>> perf record -i -vvv -e '{cycles/period=999700,alt-period=300/,instructions}:uS' benchmark 0 1
>
> Should be updated to read something like:
>
> cycles/period=1000000,hf-period=300/
>
> right?
>
> Also, cycles/freq=1000,hf-period=300/ should now also work, right?
>
> Anyway, the kernel bits look good to me now (with the nits fixed), so:
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Yes, freq works. I'll update the cover letter and address the nits in
the next submission.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists