[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/9] perf report: Support instruction latency

On 2/5/2021 7:55 AM, Athira Rajeev wrote:
>>> Because in other archs, the var2_w of ‘perf_sample_weight’ could be used to capture something else than the Local INSTR Latency.
>>> Can we have some weak function to populate the header string ?
>> I agree that the var2_w has different meanings among architectures. We should not force it to data->ins_lat.
>> The patch as below should fix it. Does it work for you?
> My point about weak function was actually for the arch specific header string. But I guess we should not force it to data->ins_lat

Yes, I don't think PowerPC should force var2_w to data->ins_lat. I think
you can create your own field.

> as you mentioned. I checked the below patch defining an ‘arch_perf_parse_sample_weight' for powerpc and it works.
> But one observation is that, for cases with kernel having support for PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT but missing arch specific support for ‘arch_perf_parse_sample_weight', it will report ‘Local Weight’ wrongly since weak function takes it as 64 bit. Not sure if that is a valid case to consider though.

Currently, the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT is only enabled on X86 by default.

For PowerPC, the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT is still the default setting. There
is no way to set PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT via perf tool.
I don't think the above case will happen.


 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-05 23:39    [W:0.167 / U:2.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site