From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753706Ab0KUOT1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:19:27 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:11957 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753390Ab0KUOT0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:19:26 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,231,1288594800"; d="scan'208";a="351430321" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 v2] perf: Update perf tool to monitor uncore events From: Lin Ming To: Stephane Eranian Cc: Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , lkml , Frederic Weisbecker , Arjan van de Ven In-Reply-To: References: <1290340907.2245.125.camel@localhost> <340872239c47b2ec237c88488cb7b6ac.squirrel@www.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:19:26 +0800 Message-Id: <1290349166.2245.181.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.0 (2.28.0-2.fc12) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 20:22 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > >> > >> samples pcnt function DSO > >> _______ _____ ______________________ > >> ____________________________________ > >> > >> 8.00 18.6% kallsyms_expand_symbol [kernel.kallsyms] > > > > Reporting a symbol for an uncore event seems highly misleading. > > After all the uncore counter has no idea for which core the event was, > > so there isn't really any instruction pointer to report. > > The event could be event caused by a PCI device or similar. > > > > For per function monitoring of uncore events one has to use > > OFFCORE_RESPONSE, like I implemented recently. > > > > I would suggest to not report any symbol names for uncore events. > > Doing so just will confuse users. > > > > In fact I suspect uncore events are only really useful > > with "stat", but not with "top", or if they are used in top > > then the symbol reporting should be disabled. > > > I agree, uncore should only be used for counting on a > per-cpu basis. You can leave the perf tool as is, but > that opens up the risk of misinterpretation by many users, > or you restrict this in the tool directly which is the better > solution in my mind. I agree restricting the tool is a better idea. How about below? #one cpu stat is allowed perf stat -e ruNNNN -C perf stat -e ruNNNN -C -p perf stat -e ruNNNN -C -- #per thread is NOT allowed perf stat -e ruNNNN -p perf stat -e ruNNNN -- #all cpus stat is NOT allowed, because it will mess the results perf stat -e ruNNNN -a