Re: State of "perf: Add a new sort order: SORT_INCLUSIVE"

From: Arun Sharma
Date: Mon Oct 28 2013 - 13:56:20 EST

On 10/28/13 2:29 AM, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:42:44 +0000, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:09:49PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Anyway, You can find the series and discussion on the link below:

I've read the cover letter for that series and probably because I don't know
about perf internals I have a question: How will "--culumate" interact with
"--sort=dso" for example ?

I mean, is it possible for that to show more than 100% ? (if you add all the
93.35% in your example in the cover letter, or something similar). Or
"--culumate --sort=dso" will just group together all entries that have a dso in
the call chain ?

Hmm.. I think --cumulate option is only meaningful when sort order
includes symbol. Maybe I can add support for --sort=dso case as well
but not sure it's worth. Do you think it's really needed?

I don't know if it is *needed*, but that was what I need :)

I suspect that users will find creative ways of using these options to solve real world problems and we shouldn't restrict usage any more than we need to to protect against obvious bugs/crashes.

Also, what's the reasoning for --cumulate not being an option under perf record -g ..,<order>?

In order to integrate perf record -b and --cumulate, we'll have to sort out the underlying infrastructure for processing callgraphs and branch stacks. I think the main roadblock here is that one is statistical and on many CPUs incomplete (only top N branches are reported).

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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at