Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] perf report/annotate: Support average IPC and IPC coverage for function

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:24:27PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/28/2018 6:18 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:17:57AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:14:55PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> > > > Add supporting of displaying the average IPC and IPC coverage
> > > > percentage per function.
> > > > 
> > > > For example,
> > > > 
> > > > $ perf record -b ...
> > > > $ perf report -s symbol or
> > > >    perf report -s symbol --stdio
> > > > 
> > > > Overhead  Symbol                           IPC   [IPC Coverage]
> > > >    39.60%  [.] __random                     2.30  [ 54.8%]
> > > >    18.02%  [.] main                         0.43  [ 54.3%]
> > > >    14.21%  [.] compute_flag                 2.29  [100.0%]
> > > >    14.16%  [.] rand                         0.36  [100.0%]
> > > >     7.06%  [.] __random_r                   2.57  [ 70.5%]
> > > >     6.85%  [.] rand@plt                     0.00  [  0.0%]
> > > >    ...
> > > > 
> > > > $ perf annotate --stdio2
> > > > 
> > > > Percent  IPC Cycle (Average IPC: 2.30, IPC Coverage: 54.8%)
> > > > 
> > > >                          Disassembly of section .text:
> > > > 
> > > >                          000000000003aac0 <random@@GLIBC_2.2.5>:
> > > >    8.32  3.28              sub    $0x18,%rsp
> > > >          3.28              mov    $0x1,%esi
> > > >          3.28              xor    %eax,%eax
> > > >          3.28              cmpl   $0x0,argp_program_version_hook@@GLIBC_2.2.5+0x1e0
> > > >   11.57  3.28     1      ↓ je     20
> > > >                            lock   cmpxchg %esi,__abort_msg@@GLIBC_PRIVATE+0x8a0
> > > >                          ↓ jne    29
> > > >                          ↓ jmp    43
> > > >   11.57  1.10        20:   cmpxchg %esi,__abort_msg@@GLIBC_PRIVATE+0x8a0
> > > >   ...
> > > > 
> > > > v3:
> > > > ---
> > > >      Remove the sortkey "ipc" from command-line. The columns "IPC"
> > > >      and "[IPC Coverage]" are automatically enabled when "symbol"
> > > >      is specified.
> > > > 
> > > >      Patch "perf report: Display average IPC and IPC coverage per symbol"
> > > >      is impacted.
> > > > 
> > > > v2:
> > > > ---
> > > >    1. Merge in Jiri's patch to support stdio mode
> > > > 
> > > >    2. Add a new patch "perf annotate: Create a annotate2 flag
> > > >       in struct symbol" which records if the symbol has been
> > > >       annotated yet.
> > > > 
> > > >    3. Minor update such as adding { } for multiline code in 'if'
> > > >       condition.
> > > > 
> > > > Jin Yao (3):
> > > >    perf annotate: Compute average IPC and IPC coverage per symbol
> > > >    perf annotate: Create a annotate2 flag in struct symbol
> > > >    perf report: Display average IPC and IPC coverage per symbol
> > > 
> > > hi,
> > > I took he liberty and moved the annotation retrieval into
> > > resort phase under progress bar scope. It's currently on top
> > > of my perf/fixes branch, could you please check it?
> > > 
> > >    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git
> > 
> > commits:
> > 7f3ffdb9783f perf tools: Move symbol annotation to resort
> > e87f7d3c4f10 perf tools: Add perf_evsel__output_resort_cb function
> > 40012b422108 perf tools: Add argument to hists__resort_cb_t callback
> > 
> > jirka
> > 
> 
> Hi Jiri,
> 
> Thanks for your patches. I have tested with your repo. Now I can see 2
> progress bars. One is displayed at the events processing phase, the other is
> displayed at resorting phase.
> 
> I have only one concern that is, in my test, much of time is consumed by the
> event processing phase, for example, 90% of time. Only 10% of time is
> consumed at resorting phase.
> 
> So do we really need the second progress bar?

well I did not add it, it's been always there, it just must
have been real quick for you so u did not notice I guess

it's strange, because for me the resorting takes much longer
even for small data.. let's have your patchset applied and
have this discussion when I send out the patches

thanks,
jirka