Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf stat: add perf stat -B to pretty print large numbers

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 23:08:16 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo said:

(Sorry for late reply)

> instance LC_NUMERIC=en_US.UTF8. You need to pass -B to activate this
> feature. This way existing scripts parsing the output do not need to be
> changed. Here is an example.
> 
> $ perf stat noploop 2
> noploop for 2 seconds
> 
>  Performance counter stats for 'noploop 2':
> 
>         1998.347031  task-clock-msecs         #      0.998 CPUs
>                  61  context-switches         #      0.000 M/sec
>                   0  CPU-migrations           #      0.000 M/sec
>                 118  page-faults              #      0.000 M/sec
>       4,138,410,900  cycles                   #   2070.917 M/sec  (scaled from 70.01%)
>       2,062,650,268  instructions             #      0.498 IPC    (scaled from 70.01%)
>       2,057,653,466  branches                 #   1029.678 M/sec  (scaled from 70.01%)
>              40,267  branch-misses            #      0.002 %      (scaled from 30.04%)
>       2,055,961,348  cache-references         #   1028.831 M/sec  (scaled from 30.03%)
>              53,725  cache-misses             #      0.027 M/sec  (scaled from 30.02%)
> 
>         2.001393933  seconds time elapsed
> 
> $ perf stat -B  noploop 2
> noploop for 2 seconds
> 
>  Performance counter stats for 'noploop 2':
> 
>         1998.297883  task-clock-msecs         #      0.998 CPUs
>                  59  context-switches         #      0.000 M/sec
>                   0  CPU-migrations           #      0.000 M/sec
>                 119  page-faults              #      0.000 M/sec
>       4,131,380,160  cycles                   #   2067.450 M/sec  (scaled from 70.01%)
>       2,059,096,507  instructions             #      0.498 IPC    (scaled from 70.01%)
>       2,054,681,303  branches                 #   1028.216 M/sec  (scaled from 70.01%)
>              25,650  branch-misses            #      0.001 %      (scaled from 30.05%)
>       2,056,283,014  cache-references         #   1029.017 M/sec  (scaled from 30.03%)
>              47,097  cache-misses             #      0.024 M/sec  (scaled from 30.02%)
> 
>         2.001391016  seconds time elapsed

Is it me, or did -B not make any difference for these two examples?
I'm confused.

> -	fprintf(stderr, " %14.6f  %-24s", msecs, event_name(counter));
> +	fprintf(stderr, " %18.6f  %-24s", msecs, event_name(counter));

> -	fprintf(stderr, " %14.0f  %-24s", avg, event_name(counter));
> +	if (big_num)
> +		fprintf(stderr, " %'18.0f  %-24s", avg, event_name(counter));
> +	else
> +		fprintf(stderr, " %18.0f  %-24s", avg, event_name(counter));

> -		fprintf(stderr, " %14s  %-24s\n",
> +		fprintf(stderr, " %18s  %-24s\n",
>  			"<not counted>", event_name(counter));

> -	fprintf(stderr, " %14.9f  seconds time elapsed",
> +	fprintf(stderr, " %18.9f  seconds time elapsed",

Why is the 'if (big_num)' applied to only one of the 4 sites, and the
other 3 blindly expanded from 14 to 18 characters?

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature