Re: [PATCH v4] perf stat: Show percore counts in per CPU output

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 09:22:57AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/17/2020 6:54 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:04:52PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> > 
> > SNIP
> > 
> > >   CPU1               1,009,312      cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > >   CPU2               2,784,072      cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > >   CPU3               2,427,922      cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > >   CPU4               2,752,148      cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > >   CPU6               2,784,072      cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > >   CPU7               2,427,922      cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/
> > > 
> > >          1.001416041 seconds time elapsed
> > > 
> > >   v4:
> > >   ---
> > >   Ravi Bangoria reports an issue in v3. Once we offline a CPU,
> > >   the output is not correct. The issue is we should use the cpu
> > >   idx in print_percore_thread rather than using the cpu value.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > 
> 
> Thanks so much for ACK this patch. :)
> 
> > btw, there's slight misalignment in -I output, but not due
> > to your change, it's there for some time now, and probably
> > in other agregation  outputs as well:
> > 
> > 
> >    $ sudo ./perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles/ -a -A  -I 1000
> >    #           time CPU                    counts unit events
> >         1.000224464 CPU0               7,251,151      cpu/event=cpu-cycles/
> >         1.000224464 CPU1              21,614,946      cpu/event=cpu-cycles/
> >         1.000224464 CPU2              30,812,097      cpu/event=cpu-cycles/
> > 
> > should be (extra space after CPUX):
> > 
> >         1.000224464 CPU2               30,812,097      cpu/event=cpu-cycles/
> > 
> > I'll put it on my TODO, but if you're welcome to check on it ;-)
> > 
> > thanks,
> > jirka
> > 
> 
> I have a simple fix for this misalignment issue.
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c b/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> index bc31fccc0057..95b29c9cba36 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/stat-display.c
> @@ -114,11 +114,11 @@ static void aggr_printout(struct perf_stat_config
> *config,
>                         fprintf(config->output, "S%d-D%d-C%*d%s",
>                                 cpu_map__id_to_socket(id),
>                                 cpu_map__id_to_die(id),
> -                               config->csv_output ? 0 : -5,
> +                               config->csv_output ? 0 : -3,
>                                 cpu_map__id_to_cpu(id), config->csv_sep);
>                 } else {
> -                       fprintf(config->output, "CPU%*d%s ",
> -                               config->csv_output ? 0 : -5,
> +                       fprintf(config->output, "CPU%*d%s",
> +                               config->csv_output ? 0 : -7,
>                                 evsel__cpus(evsel)->map[id],
>                                 config->csv_sep);

I guess that's ok, will that work with higher (3 digit) cpu numbers?

jirka

>                 }
> 
> Following command lines are tested OK.
> 
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles/ -I 1000
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles/ -a -I 1000
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles/ -a -A -I 1000
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/ -a -A -I 1000
> perf stat -e cpu/event=cpu-cycles,percore/ -a -A --percore-show-thread -I
> 1000
> 
> Could you help to look at that?
> 
> Thanks
> Jin Yao
>