From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] perf report: properly handle branch count in match_chain Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:15:11 -0700 Message-ID: <87she9hp4w.fsf@linux.intel.com> References: <20171019113836.5548-1-milian.wolff@kdab.com> <20171019113836.5548-2-milian.wolff@kdab.com> <1895125.rrirNAUR4a@agathebauer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:4703 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751260AbdJWPPM (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:15:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1895125.rrirNAUR4a@agathebauer> (Milian Wolff's message of "Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:42:18 +0200") Sender: linux-perf-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Milian Wolff Cc: acme@kernel.org, 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 Milian Wolff writes: > > 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. Branch cycles requires at least a Skylake or Goldmont CPU, so yes. For testing on other systems you can fake them however with some variant of this patch http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail//linux/kernel/1505.1/01135.html -Andi