lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: perf: bisected sampling bug in Linux 4.11-rc1
Date
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu> writes:

> I was tracking down some regressions in my perf_event_test testsuite.
> Some of the tests broke in the 4.11-rc1 timeframe.
>
> I've bisected one of them, this report is about
> tests/overflow/simul_oneshot_group_overflow
> This test creates an event group containing two sampling events, set
> to overflow to a signal handler (which disables and then refreshes the
> event).
>
> On a good kernel you get the following:
> Event perf::instructions with period 1000000
> Event perf::instructions with period 2000000
> fd 3 overflows: 946 (perf::instructions/1000000)
> fd 4 overflows: 473 (perf::instructions/2000000)
> Ending counts:
> Count 0: 946379875
> Count 1: 946365218
>
> With the broken kernels you get:
> Event perf::instructions with period 1000000
> Event perf::instructions with period 2000000
> fd 3 overflows: 938 (perf::instructions/1000000)
> fd 4 overflows: 318 (perf::instructions/2000000)
> Ending counts:
> Count 0: 946373080
> Count 1: 653373058

I'm not sure I'm seeing it (granted, it's a friday evening): is it the
difference in overflow counts?

Also, are they cpu or task bound?

Regards,
--
Alex

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-14 22:08    [W:0.427 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site