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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221018020227.85905-1-namhyung@kernel.org> <20221018020227.85905-19-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <ZInDSgrOzYSX124p@krava> <CAP-5=fX2ULvR7KFCwZN4wn1LSQmtJqQk7bK=T=BHdvnHuL=DdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZIrHatpIlo3Y2ZPQ@krava>
In-Reply-To: <ZIrHatpIlo3Y2ZPQ@krava>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:31:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM9d7ciT77ZJNuSnHZFg1XrjtTFoDg1TYn4PByaHtbz2e3OO5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/20] perf stat: Display event stats using aggr counts
To:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
        Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>,
        Michael Petlan <mpetlan@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

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.