lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf stat: fix per-pkg event reporting bug
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:05:32AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > SNIP
> >> >
> >> >> + /*
> >> >> + * we do not consider an event that has not run as a good
> >> >> + * instance to mark a package as used (skip=1). Otherwise
> >> >> + * we may run into a situation where the first CPU in a package
> >> >> + * is not running anything, yet the second is, and this function
> >> >> + * would mark the package as used after the first CPU and would
> >> >> + * not read the values from the second CPU.
> >> >> + */
> >> >> + if (!(vals->run && vals->ena))
> >> >> + return 0;
> >> >> +
> >> >> s = cpu_map__get_socket(cpus, cpu);
> >> >> if (s < 0)
> >> >> return -1;
> >> >> @@ -235,7 +247,7 @@ process_counter_values(struct perf_stat_config *config, struct perf_evsel *evsel
> >> >> static struct perf_counts_values zero;
> >> >> bool skip = false;
> >> >>
> >> >> - if (check_per_pkg(evsel, cpu, &skip)) {
> >> >> + if (check_per_pkg(evsel, aggr, cpu, &skip)) {
> >> >
> >> > should we pass 'count' instead o 'aggr' ?
> >> >
> >> the reason I passed counts_values is in case this function needs to be
> >> called from other places which do
> >> not use aggr mode.
> >
> > sure, but 'aggr' is being computed within process_counter_values
> >
> > process_counter_values gets 'count' argument with values read
> > for given cpu/thread for further processing, and it seems to
> > me that 'count' values should be passed to check_per_pkg
> >
> You do not want to aggregate values, you want to look at the individual events
> for each CPU because you need to look at their run/ena fields.

yes, but for 'count' not 'aggr'

jirka


---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/stat.c b/tools/perf/util/stat.c
index f1d83599217b..2d065d065b67 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/stat.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/stat.c
@@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ process_counter_values(struct perf_stat_config *config, struct perf_evsel *evsel
static struct perf_counts_values zero;
bool skip = false;

- if (check_per_pkg(evsel, aggr, cpu, &skip)) {
+ if (check_per_pkg(evsel, count, cpu, &skip)) {
pr_err("failed to read per-pkg counter\n");
return -1;
}

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-03 14:41    [W:0.064 / U:8.980 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site