public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tools: Record total sampling time
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:57:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131202125709.GA22404@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131202124527.GB22212@gmail.com>


So basically, in the end I think it should be possible to have the 
following behavior:

   perf record -a -e cycles sleep 1

   perf report stat              # Reports as if we ran: 'perf stat -a -e cycles sleep 1'
   perf report                   # Reports the usual histogram

   perf report --stat            # Reports the perf stat output and the histogram

or so.

i.e. a perf.data file would by default always carry enough information 
to enable the extraction of the 'perf stat' data.

At that point visualizing it is purely report-time logic, it does not 
need any record-time options.

This would work for multi-event sampling as well, if we do:

   perf record -a -e cycles -e branches sleep 1

then 'perf report stat' would output the same as:

 $ perf stat -e cycles -e branches -a sleep 1

 Performance counter stats for 'system wide':

        34,174,518      cycles                    [100.00%]
         3,155,677      branches                                                    

       1.000802852 seconds time elapsed

Another neat feature this kind of workflo enables is the integration 
of --repeat to perf record, so something like:

    perf record --repeat 3 -a -e cycles -e branches sleep 1

would save 3 samples after each other, and would allow extraction of 
the statistical stability of the measurement, and 'perf report stat' 
would print the same result as a raw perf stat run would:

 $ perf stat --repeat 3 -e cycles -e branches -e instructions -a sleep 1

 Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (3 runs):

    28,975,150,642      cycles                     ( +-  0.43% ) [100.00%]
    10,740,235,371      branches                                                      ( +-  0.47% ) [100.00%]
    44,535,464,754      instructions              #    1.54  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.47% )

       1.005718027 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.43% )

Or something like that. At that point we share reporting between perf 
stat and perf report, no special ad-hoc options are needed to just 
measure and report timestamps, it would all be a 'natural' side effect 
of having perf stat.

What do you think?

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2013-12-02 12:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-02  6:53 [RFC 0/3] perf tools: Show time info (v1) Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02  6:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] perf tools: Record total sampling time Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02 12:45   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-02 12:57     ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-12-02 15:43       ` Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02 16:36         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-02 20:24           ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-12-03  5:44             ` Namhyung Kim
2013-12-03 14:30               ` David Ahern
2013-12-04 10:00                 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-04 10:02             ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-03  5:33           ` Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02 15:05     ` Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02 18:51       ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-12-02  6:53 ` [PATCH 2/3] perf tools: Record sampling time for each entry Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02 12:39   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-12-02 14:57     ` Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02 18:49       ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-12-03  4:33         ` Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02  6:53 ` [PATCH 3/3] perf report: Add --show-time-info option Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02 12:33   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-12-02 14:38     ` Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02  9:35 ` [RFC 0/3] perf tools: Show time info (v1) Pekka Enberg
2013-12-03  2:28   ` Namhyung Kim
2013-12-02 17:04 ` Andi Kleen
2013-12-03  2:34   ` Namhyung Kim

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=20131202125709.GA22404@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=namhyung.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=penberg@iki.fi \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.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