From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Milian Wolff Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] perf report: properly handle branch count in match_chain Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:42:18 +0200 Message-ID: <1895125.rrirNAUR4a@agathebauer> References: <20171019113836.5548-1-milian.wolff@kdab.com> <20171019113836.5548-2-milian.wolff@kdab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mail.kdab.com ([176.9.126.58]:36644 "EHLO mail.kdab.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752742AbdJSLmV (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:42:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20171019113836.5548-2-milian.wolff@kdab.com> Sender: linux-perf-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: acme@kernel.org Cc: jolsa@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , David Ahern , Peter Zijlstra , Yao Jin , Ravi Bangoria On Donnerstag, 19. Oktober 2017 13:38:32 CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > Some of the code paths I introduced before returned too early > without running the code to handle a node's branch count. > By refactoring match_chain to only have one exit point, this > can be remedied. Note: I tested this with some of the code I have available, but I'm unsure I'm doing it right. On my system, I never get avg_cycles != 0. I tried: perf record -b --call-graph dwarf perf report --branch-history --no-children --stdio I see predicted and iter values as before, so I think nothing is breaking. But I'm somewhat unsure. Can someone paste an example source code and the perf commands to get some meaningful avg_cycles? Or does this depend on a newer Intel CPU? I have currently only a Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5600U CPU @ 2.60GHz available. Cheers -- Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts