From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751516AbcETTxW (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2016 15:53:22 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:5406 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750934AbcETTxI (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2016 15:53:08 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,340,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="107703558" Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:53:07 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Andi Kleen , acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf stat: Print topology/time headers with --metric-only Message-ID: <20160520195307.GA13617@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <1463754599-30786-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <20160520153652.GA23195@krava> <20160520154319.GW11177@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20160520154738.GA26186@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160520154738.GA26186@krava> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:47:38PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:43:19AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > hum, I'm getting something else: > > > > > > [jolsa@ibm-x3650m4-01 perf]$ sudo ./perf stat --topdown -I 1000 -a > > > nmi_watchdog enabled with topdown. May give wrong results. > > > Disable with echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog > > > # time core cpus > > > 1.001710838 retiring bad speculation frontend bound backend bound > > > 1.001710838 S0-C0 2 38.1% -0.0% 58.8% 3.1% > > > 1.001710838 S0-C1 2 38.0% 0.0% 59.4% 2.5% > > > > > > > > > [jolsa@ibm-x3650m4-01 perf]$ sudo ./perf stat --metric-only -e cycles,instructions -a -I 1000 > > > # time > > > 1.000756338 insn per cycle stalled cycles per insn > > > 1.000756338 0.32 > > > 2.001155562 0.30 > > > > Right sorry, that was me not cutting and pasting correctly. > > > > Your output is correct and intended. > > hum, I dont think so.. headers should be on the same line, right? I posted new patches which move it to the same line, and also fix another bug I noticed. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only