From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"mingo@elte.hu" <mingo@elte.hu>, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf stat: explicit grouping yields unexpected results
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:41:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131117034134.GA19762@tassilo.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131115103405.GA18264@gmail.com>
> I'd say that the default behavior should be what Jiri implemented: get
> the most out of the situation and inform. But you are right in that
> 'forcing' all elements of a group to be valid should be possible as
> well - if a special perf stat option or event format is used.
When something is multiplexed it can have a very
large measurement error. For workloads that fluctuate quite a bit, and the
fluctuations do not line up well with the multiplexing interval,
the default scaling does not give good results.
So you expect to get good data, but you get very bad data.
When collecting data for a large number of events it is important
to group them correctly, so that events that are directly dependent
on each other in equations are properly grouped.
When explicit groups were added the user likely considered this
problem, so it's not good to silently override the choices.
If a user doesn't care they can always not use groups.
> Even in that second case it shouldn't say <unsupported> for everything
> in the result, but should deny the run immediately and return with an
> error, and should tell the user how many events in the group fit and
> which ones didn't.
Returning this information would be great, but it would really
need an extended errno, or just a error string reported out.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-17 3:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-14 20:50 [BUG] perf stat: explicit grouping yields unexpected results Stephane Eranian
2013-11-15 6:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-15 9:24 ` Stephane Eranian
2013-11-15 10:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-15 10:41 ` Stephane Eranian
2013-11-15 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-15 11:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-15 11:58 ` Stephane Eranian
2013-11-17 3:41 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2013-11-29 13:33 ` Jiri Olsa
2013-11-29 13:43 ` Stephane Eranian
2013-11-29 13:52 ` Jiri Olsa
2013-11-29 14:01 ` Stephane Eranian
2013-12-02 15:23 ` Andi Kleen
2013-12-03 2:52 ` Stephane Eranian
2013-12-03 23:44 ` Andi Kleen
2013-11-15 10:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-15 10:13 ` Stephane Eranian
2013-11-15 10:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-15 15:08 ` Vince Weaver
2013-11-15 22:52 ` Stephane Eranian
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=20131117034134.GA19762@tassilo.jf.intel.com \
--to=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung.kim@lge.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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