Re: perf tools miscellaneous questions

[Francis Moreau <francis.moro-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Vince Weaver <vweaver1-qKp7vQ+Mknf2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org> writes:

> This is rapidly getting of topic, especially for linux-kernel

Don't think so but feel free to remove LKML from Cc.

[...]

> Most events are poorly documented, if at all.  And the Linux kernel 
> predefined event list is loosely based upon the intel architectural
> events, which not every processor has and I've heard from insiders saying 
> that you should be very careful for the results from those events.

I agree, that's why I try to clarify some events.

Perf tools are cool stuffs, IMHO, but it's pretty hard for me to
interpret results. I tried to compare some numbers in my previous posts
but I got some 'random' figures for now.

Another example is given below where I'm trying to bench a 2 functions
which do the same thing but differently.

   $ perf stat -e cache-misses:u,l1d-loads-misses:u,cycles:u -p $(pgrep test)
     C-c C-c
    Performance counter stats for process id '30263':
   
                406532  cache-misses            
               4986030  L1-dcache-load-misses   
             120247366  cycles                  
   
           2.482196928  seconds time elapsed
   
   
   $ perf stat -e cache-misses:u,l1d-loads-misses:u,cycles:u -p $(pgrep test)
     C-c C-c
    Performance counter stats for process id '30271':
   
                459683  cache-misses            
               2513338  L1-dcache-load-misses   
             159968076  cycles                  
   
           2.129021265  seconds time elapsed

Which numbers are important here ? cache-misses ? L1-dcache-load-misses
?

I just can say that the first run looks faster.

-- 
Francis