Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Perf stat: Fix the ratio comments of miss-events
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>
References: <1573890521-56450-1-git-send-email-liuqi115@hisilicon.com>
 <20191119155936.GC24290@kernel.org>
CC:     <peterz@infradead.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        <mark.rutland@arm.com>, <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        <jolsa@redhat.com>, <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linuxarm@huawei.com>, <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>, <huangdaode@hisilicon.com>,
        <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
From:   Qi Liu <liuqi115@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <1f6d8522-10df-4a68-47f5-978afc827d80@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:37:48 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191119155936.GC24290@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Arnaldo:
Thanks for your reply and sorry for replying this mail so late.

I reflowed all the lines to keep the number of characters in each line
less than 80. But I realized that the original code has exceeded 80. So
if this code format isn't necessary, and to make it easier to compare
the changes, I'll send a new patch as follow:

-	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all L1-dcache hits", ratio);
+	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all L1-dcache accesses", ratio);

Thanks
Qi Liu

On 2019/11/19 23:59, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 03:48:41PM +0800, lqqq341 escreveu:
>> From: Qi Liu <liuqi115@hisilicon.com>
>>
>> Perf stat displays miss ratio of L1-dcache, L1-icache, dTLB cache,
>> iTLB cache and LL-cache. Take L1-dcache for example, its miss ratio
>> is caculated as "L1-dcache-load-misses/L1-dcache-loads". So "of all
>> L1-dcache hits" is unsuitable to describe it, and "of all L1-dcache
>> accesses" seems better. The comments of L1-icache, dTLB cache, iTLB
>> cache and LL-cache are fixed in the same way.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qi Liu <liuqi115@hisilicon.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/util/stat-shadow.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/stat-shadow.c b/tools/perf/util/stat-shadow.c
>> index 2c41d47..a3bdf2b 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/stat-shadow.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/stat-shadow.c
>> @@ -506,7 +506,8 @@ static void print_l1_dcache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  
>>  	color = get_ratio_color(GRC_CACHE_MISSES, ratio);
>>  
>> -	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all L1-dcache hits", ratio);
>> +	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%",
>> +			  "of all L1-dcache accesses", ratio);
> 
> 
> Why have you reflowed all those lines? This patch should have been like:
> 
> -	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all L1-dcache hits", ratio);
> +	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all L1-dcache accesses", ratio);
> 
> Notice how it is easier to compare the changes, and also to keep the
> flowing like it was before your change,
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void print_l1_icache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>> @@ -527,7 +528,8 @@ static void print_l1_icache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		ratio = avg / total * 100.0;
>>  
>>  	color = get_ratio_color(GRC_CACHE_MISSES, ratio);
>> -	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all L1-icache hits", ratio);
>> +	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%",
>> +			  "of all L1-icache accesses", ratio);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void print_dtlb_cache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>> @@ -547,7 +549,8 @@ static void print_dtlb_cache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		ratio = avg / total * 100.0;
>>  
>>  	color = get_ratio_color(GRC_CACHE_MISSES, ratio);
>> -	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all dTLB cache hits", ratio);
>> +	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%",
>> +			  "of all dTLB cache accesses", ratio);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void print_itlb_cache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>> @@ -567,7 +570,8 @@ static void print_itlb_cache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		ratio = avg / total * 100.0;
>>  
>>  	color = get_ratio_color(GRC_CACHE_MISSES, ratio);
>> -	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all iTLB cache hits", ratio);
>> +	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%",
>> +			  "of all iTLB cache accesses", ratio);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void print_ll_cache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>> @@ -587,7 +591,8 @@ static void print_ll_cache_misses(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		ratio = avg / total * 100.0;
>>  
>>  	color = get_ratio_color(GRC_CACHE_MISSES, ratio);
>> -	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%", "of all LL-cache hits", ratio);
>> +	out->print_metric(config, out->ctx, color, "%7.2f%%",
>> +			  "of all LL-cache accesses", ratio);
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
>> @@ -872,7 +877,8 @@ void perf_stat__print_shadow_stats(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		if (runtime_stat_n(st, STAT_L1_DCACHE, ctx, cpu) != 0)
>>  			print_l1_dcache_misses(config, cpu, evsel, avg, out, st);
>>  		else
>> -			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL, "of all L1-dcache hits", 0);
>> +			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL,
>> +				     "of all L1-dcache accesses", 0);
>>  	} else if (
>>  		evsel->core.attr.type == PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE &&
>>  		evsel->core.attr.config ==  ( PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_L1I |
>> @@ -882,7 +888,8 @@ void perf_stat__print_shadow_stats(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		if (runtime_stat_n(st, STAT_L1_ICACHE, ctx, cpu) != 0)
>>  			print_l1_icache_misses(config, cpu, evsel, avg, out, st);
>>  		else
>> -			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL, "of all L1-icache hits", 0);
>> +			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL,
>> +				     "of all L1-icache accesses", 0);
>>  	} else if (
>>  		evsel->core.attr.type == PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE &&
>>  		evsel->core.attr.config ==  ( PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_DTLB |
>> @@ -892,7 +899,8 @@ void perf_stat__print_shadow_stats(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		if (runtime_stat_n(st, STAT_DTLB_CACHE, ctx, cpu) != 0)
>>  			print_dtlb_cache_misses(config, cpu, evsel, avg, out, st);
>>  		else
>> -			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL, "of all dTLB cache hits", 0);
>> +			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL,
>> +				     "of all dTLB cache accesses", 0);
>>  	} else if (
>>  		evsel->core.attr.type == PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE &&
>>  		evsel->core.attr.config ==  ( PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_ITLB |
>> @@ -902,7 +910,8 @@ void perf_stat__print_shadow_stats(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		if (runtime_stat_n(st, STAT_ITLB_CACHE, ctx, cpu) != 0)
>>  			print_itlb_cache_misses(config, cpu, evsel, avg, out, st);
>>  		else
>> -			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL, "of all iTLB cache hits", 0);
>> +			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL,
>> +				     "of all iTLB cache accesses", 0);
>>  	} else if (
>>  		evsel->core.attr.type == PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE &&
>>  		evsel->core.attr.config ==  ( PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_LL |
>> @@ -912,7 +921,8 @@ void perf_stat__print_shadow_stats(struct perf_stat_config *config,
>>  		if (runtime_stat_n(st, STAT_LL_CACHE, ctx, cpu) != 0)
>>  			print_ll_cache_misses(config, cpu, evsel, avg, out, st);
>>  		else
>> -			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL, "of all LL-cache hits", 0);
>> +			print_metric(config, ctxp, NULL, NULL,
>> +				     "of all LL-cache accesses", 0);
>>  	} else if (perf_evsel__match(evsel, HARDWARE, HW_CACHE_MISSES)) {
>>  		total = runtime_stat_avg(st, STAT_CACHEREFS, ctx, cpu);
>>  
>> -- 
>> 2.8.1
>