From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: perf uncore behavior Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 18:40:52 -0700 Message-ID: <87618blpsr.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:3045 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751162AbbEBBkx (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2015 21:40:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Chris Freehill's message of "Fri, 1 May 2015 15:55:35 -0500") Sender: linux-perf-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Chris Freehill Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Chris Freehill writes: > > Here are some examples: > > 1. $ perf stat -a -e "uncore_cbox_0/clockticks/" sleep 1 > > 2. $ perf stat -e "uncore_cbox_0/clockticks/" sleep 1 > > 3. $ perf stat -a -C0 -e "uncore_cbox_0/clockticks/" sleep 1 > > It appears #2 is not supported. If it was supported, I would take it > to mean the number of uncore events counted while the process was > active, regardless of which processor it was running on. Right? Is > there any reason it's not implemented (for example it's nonsensical) > or it just has been tackled yet? It's non sensical. Uncore does not support per process measurements. > Are 1 and 3 effectively the same, since uncore events are not specific > to a core? I would think they would be the same. If not, what is the > difference? 1. will sum up events from all sockets/nodes. 3. will only print from the socket/node associated with CPU 0. -andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only