From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Does perf record support event multiplexing? Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:51:53 -0800 Message-ID: <874n4v1es6.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]:5313 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752311AbaAWEvy (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:51:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: (AmirReza Ghods's message of "Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:34:15 -0500") Sender: linux-perf-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: AmirReza Ghods Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org AmirReza Ghods writes: > I noticed that "perf record" does not calculate the true value for the > number of event's counts in the case of having more events than > hardware counters. > But in pef stat it does and there is a time interpolation algorithm > for estimating and correcting the true value. > Also I saw a patch for Perf's source code that implimented time > interpolation for Perf in record mode but it did not include in the > next official realses of Perf. I just want to know that is there any > technical difficulty for implimenting this feature in "perf record" or > not? Why would you care about the exact sample count for perf report? The only thing that counts in such a histogram is the percent relationships, which would stay the same if the numbers were scaled up. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only