Messages in this thread | | | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Date | Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:31:04 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 18/20] perf stat: Display event stats using aggr counts |
| |
Hi Jiri,
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 1:10 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 09:20:53AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 6:40 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 07:02:25PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > Now aggr counts are ready for use. Convert the display routines to use > > > > the aggr counts and update the shadow stat with them. It doesn't need > > > > to aggregate counts or collect aliases anymore during the display. Get > > > > rid of now unused struct perf_aggr_thread_value. > > > > > > > > Note that there's a difference in the display order among the aggr mode. > > > > For per-core/die/socket/node aggregation, it shows relevant events in > > > > the same unit together, whereas global/thread/no aggregation it shows > > > > the same events for different units together. So it still uses separate > > > > codes to display them due to the ordering. > > > > > > > > One more thing to note is that it breaks per-core event display for now. > > > > The next patch will fix it to have identical output as of now. > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> > > > > > > hi, > > > this one seems to break 'perf stat -r X' not sure why so far.. > > > > > > final counts seems to be accumulated instead of displaying average, like: > > > > > > > > > with this patch: > > > > > > Performance counter stats for './test_progs -n 103/1' (2 runs): > > > > > > 206,815,929 cycles:u ( +- 0.05% ) > > > 16,052,747,533 cycles:k ( +- 0.10% ) > > > 16,259,643,167 cycles ( +- 0.10% ) > > > > > > 1.98093 +- 0.00586 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.30% ) > > > > > > > > > without this patch: > > > > > > Performance counter stats for './test_progs -n 103/1' (2 runs): > > > > > > 103,300,812 cycles:u ( +- 0.37% ) > > > 8,016,856,866 cycles:k ( +- 0.32% ) > > > 8,120,200,572 cycles ( +- 0.32% ) > > > > > > 1.97272 +- 0.00270 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.14% ) > > > > > > > > > any idea? ;-) > > > > Is this still broken in perf-tools-next? The patch is quite old and > > there's been work in this area. I'm assuming yes, but thought it was > > worth checking. > > yes
I'll take a look.
| |