Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:19:44 +0100
From:   "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sesse@google.com>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf intel-pt: Synthesize cycle events
Message-ID: <YjGdoGy4Z2UUG9S9@google.com>
References: <20220310093844.982656-1-sesse@google.com>
 <586de5fc-858b-2693-1986-5c77e8c0e3d0@intel.com>
 <YiuKAk7SaXP7B7Ee@google.com>
 <ba2c49da-22c5-06ea-e953-82211b953ca8@intel.com>
 <YjBnet2813sEGjZY@google.com>
 <c50bb87d-9fee-c4f9-a350-8729e503e43a@intel.com>
 <YjDUO6bbyfGw/u0C@google.com>
 <52903e58-e74c-5ea0-36b4-277ea3610af4@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52903e58-e74c-5ea0-36b4-277ea3610af4@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:11:54PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Sorry, my first suggestion has issues, but the second is better.

I tried your second one, but can't see much difference. The original and
your patched version still differ by a lot, and I still see various
non-branch instructions getting very tiny fractions. (PSB packets
_might_ be it, as there are ~1000 of them in the 165M-cycle trace.)

I guess the good news is that the perf report coming out of your version
looks more likely to me; I have some functions that are around 1% that
shouldn't intuitively be that much (and, if I write some Perl to sum up
the cycles from the IPC lines in perf script, are more around 0.1%).
So perhaps we should stop chasing the difference? I don't know.

/* Steinar */