Re: [PATCH v6 13/18] perf: add support for taken branch sampling toperf report

[Stephane Eranian]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: Roberto Agostino Vitillo <ravitillo@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> This patch adds support for taken branch sampling, i.e, the
>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK feature to perf report. In other
>> words, to display histograms based on taken branches rather
>> than executed instructions addresses.
>>
>> The new option is called -b and it takes no argument. To
>> generate meaningful output, the perf.data must have been
>> obtained using perf record -b xxx ... where xxx is a branch
>> filter option.
>>
>> The output shows symbols, modules, sorted by 'who branches
>> where' the most often. The percentages reported in the first
>> column refer to the total number of branches captured and
>> not the usual number of samples.
>>
>> Here is a quick example.
>> Here branchy is simple test program which looks as follows:
>>
>> void f2(void)
>> {}
>> void f3(void)
>> {}
>> void f1(unsigned long n)
>> {
>> Â if (n & 1UL)
>> Â Â f2();
>> Â else
>> Â Â f3();
>> }
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> Â unsigned long i;
>>
>> Â for (i=0; i < N; i++)
>> Â Âf1(i);
>> Â return 0;
>> }
>>
>> Here is the output captured on Nehalem, if we are
>> only interested in user level function calls.
>>
>> $ perf record -b any_call,u -e cycles:u branchy
>>
>> $ perf report -b --sort=symbol
>>   52.34% Â[.] main          [.] f1
>> Â Â 24.04% Â[.] f1 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â [.] f3
>> Â Â 23.60% Â[.] f1 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â [.] f2
>>   Â0.01% Â[k] _IO_new_file_xsputn  Â[k] _IO_file_overflow
>> Â Â Â0.01% Â[k] _IO_vfprintf_internal Â[k] _IO_new_file_xsputn
>> Â Â Â0.01% Â[k] _IO_vfprintf_internal Â[k] strchrnul
>>   Â0.01% Â[k] __printf        [k] _IO_vfprintf_internal
>>   Â0.01% Â[k] main          [k] __printf
>
> Ok, nice feature.
>
> One detail needs to be fixed though, if someone does:
>
> Âperf record -b ...
>
> then 'perf report' should *default* to the above branch stack
> output style, without having to specify -b again.
>
Fair enough.

I'll check how we could do that. It's not so obvious as the code
stands. I think we may need to add a new feature bit for that.
It would avoid having to sniff either the cmdline, the event desc
or worst the samples themselves.

> Having --branch/--no-branch present in perf report is fine if
> someone wants to force either direction, but the default
> absolutely must be picked up from the perf.data and should be
> the obvious behavior.
>
> Other than that it looks good to me, so if this detail is fixed
> (can be a delta patch on top of the existing series) and there's
> no problems with it I can pick it up for v3.4.
>
It'll be a delta patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/