From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: "Lénaïc Huard" <lenaic@lhuard.fr.eu.org>,
"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>,
"Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Shift by one instruction in the perf annotate output
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:27:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120127102741.GA31782@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1327652120.2446.123.camel@twins>
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > I am running Linux and perf 3.2 but I remember that previous
> > versions suffered from the same issue.
> >
> > I don’t know if it could be specific to my cpu:
> > processor : 0
> > vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> > cpu family : 6
> > model : 15
> > model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz
>
> And sadly its the best you'll get on your machine, most Intel
> chips after that (including the core2 shrink, but excluding
> the latest core i7 SNB) can do better using a feature called
> PEBS.
Which can be activated on those CPUs using the '-e cycles:pp'
option (the first 'p' stands for 'precise', the second 'p' for
'very precise' ;-).
In that case some rather non-obvious perf magic is activated (we
use PEBS for precise samples and use the LBR hardware to rewind
the IP), due to which annotation output looks like this:
: ffffffff810a6f51 <do_raw_spin_lock>: ▒
1.77 : ffffffff810a6f51: mov $0x10000,%eax ▒
44.95 : ffffffff810a6f56: lock xadd %eax,(%rdi) ▒
1.25 : ffffffff810a6f5a: mov %eax,%edx ▒
0.29 : ffffffff810a6f5c: shr $0x10,%edx ▒
1.21 : ffffffff810a6f5f: cmp %dx,%ax ▒
0.01 : ffffffff810a6f62: je ffffffff810a6f6b <do_raw_spin_lock+0x1a> ▒
29.81 : ffffffff810a6f64: pause ▒
16.45 : ffffffff810a6f66: mov (%rdi),%ax ▒
4.27 : ffffffff810a6f69: jmp ffffffff810a6f5f <do_raw_spin_lock+0xe> ▒
0.00 : ffffffff810a6f6b: retq ▒
the entries are both precise and show up in the right place.
On Core2 CPUs there's PEBS so 'p' will work, but there's no LBR
so the IP-rewinding does not work.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-27 10:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-26 23:01 Shift by one instruction in the perf annotate output Lénaïc Huard
2012-01-27 6:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-01-27 8:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-01-27 10:27 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2012-01-27 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-01-27 10:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-01-27 10:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120127102741.GA31782@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=lenaic@lhuard.fr.eu.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox