Re: [PATCH 18/31] perf, core: Add a concept of a weightened sample

[Stephane Eranian]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I came to the conclusion that yes we need something like a weight or cost
>> as a generic way of reporting that in some modes the period is not really
>> the right measure to evaluate the "cost" of an event.
>
> I'm not fully sure if you're for or against it. I think
> the patch is mostly orthogonal to what you're proposing
>
I am for it. It does not have to be specific to TSX or PEBS-LL.
I have one form of it in my PEBS-LL patch. And yes, it appears
as a sort key (for memory sampling mode only right now).

> My main target is the TSX abort cost, the memory latencies
> I just added as a bonus.
>
>>
>> I was testing my PEBS Load Latency patch this week, I came to that
>> conclusion. The way perf report sorts samples based on aggregated
>> periods per IP does not work for PEBS Load Latency (and possibly other
>> modes). The sorting needs to be based on some cost that may be distinct
>> from the period. By default, it would be the period, but for PEBS LL that
>> would be the latency of the load at a specific IP. That would more reflect
>> was is going on.
>
>
> I originally folded the weight into nr_events, but in the end it turned
> out it's fairly useful to expose both explicitely as sort keys.
>
> In some cases you want the average weight, in others the total weight
> (SUM(weight) * nr_events). I haven't tried to mess with the period
> so far.
>
> -Andi
--
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/