Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] counter read during perf sampling

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 02:57:14PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:

SNIP

> > >
> > > Yes, the way to store the data from perf stat is better than pure
> > > script way. I guess your patch "perf stat record" can do that, right?
> > >
> > > If so, how should we run perf record and stat in parallel? By scripts
> > > or modify perf record/stat?
> > >
> > > Also, we need an option in perf report to merge the perf.data-s. Right?
> > 
> > either that or extra step with 'perf data merge' or somthing like that
> >
> 
> Any update about "perf stat record" patch set? That will help a lot, if

I'll try to post new version this week

> we finally choose the 'perf data merge' way. Right?  

I think we could do both ways.. let user choose whatever is more convenient

SNIP

> > 
> > the way I see it you implemented 'perf stat' logic within record command
> > you create counter (non sampling) and read it via read syscall
> > 
> > I think it's good idea, but I think we should follow the way we do in perf
> > stat command and reuse the interface (and code)
> > 
> > like having the 'stat' keyword separating the non-sampling config:
> > 
> >   $ perf record -e cycles stat -e 'uncore_imc_1/cas_count_read/' -I 10000 -
> >  ./tchain_edit
> >
> 
> Another thing is that there is limitation for --interval-print in perf stat.
> The interval must >= 100ms. However, we need the interval >=10ms.
> 
> Any idea about where 100ms is from? Print limit?  

I don't recall any reason for this limitation, IMO it was just convenient
to have higher unit because lower wasn't needed.. so I think we can change
it do 10ms

SNIP

> > 
> > hum, how the --counter-read-interval data displayed then? it's not single
> > number right?
> >
> No matter which way we choose, I think the output should be similar.
> 
> As my original design, perf only output every --counter-read-interval data
> in perf report -D.
> For tui and stdio, it only output the aggregate number. So, yes, single number.
> 
> I think it should be enough. In tui/stdio, perf gives user a roughly image by
> the total number during the whole sampling process. If they want details,
> they can check by report -D.
> Considering the interval is only 10ms, if perf output everything in tui/stdio,
> the output is too huge.

what is the reason to read the counter multiple times if you display only
single number at the end? overflow issues?

thanks,
jirka