[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: State of "perf: Add a new sort order: SORT_INCLUSIVE"
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:10:38PM -0700, Arun Sharma wrote:
> On 10/28/13 8:11 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hey Namhyung:
> >>
> >>Also, what's the reasoning for --cumulate not being an option under
> >>perf record -g ..,<order>?
> >
> >Sorry, I cannot understand you. The 'perf record' just saves sample
> >data (and callchains) from the ring-buffer. All the processing happens
> >in 'perf report'. I can't see what you expect from the 'perf record
> >--cumulate'. Am I missing something?
> Yes - I meant to say perf report -g :)
> > -g [type,min[,limit],order]
> Specifically, along with callee, caller, we could have a third
> option. Or we could have a new type (graph, fractal, cumulative).
> >>Given that there are clear use cases in production involving complex
> >>callgraphs, I'm for getting this support in first and then reconciling
> >>the differences with perf record -b later.
> >
> >I think what Frederic said is that the code de-duplication of 'perf
> >report' side. The branch stack and --cumulate are different - branch
> >stack concentrates on the branch itself but --cumulate uses callchains
> >to find parents and give some credit to them as side information.
> Me too. I brought it up with Stephane at some point in the last year
> or so and there wasn't an obvious way to de-duplicate because of
> these differences.

I agree that the interface is debatable. It could be -g ...,cumulative, expand -b, or whatever.
But the backend is the same: perf_report__add_branch_hist_entry should be shared 80%.

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-29 10:21    [W:0.069 / U:2.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site