Thank you for your response, but that doesn't really answer my question. I wanted to know why scaling of the event counts is implemented in "perf stat" but NOT implemented in "perf record".
As for caring about the exact sample count of perf report, I don't think the relative usefulness of the values is a good reason to leave users with some verifiably false results, and expect them to figure out why they got them. I know some users, including myself, will be confused to measure event counts differing (sometimes 300% in my experience) from what they might expect. Thanks, Amir On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: > AmirReza Ghods <ar.gh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I noticed that "perf record" does not calculate the true value for the >> number of event's counts in the case of having more events than >> hardware counters. >> But in pef stat it does and there is a time interpolation algorithm >> for estimating and correcting the true value. >> Also I saw a patch for Perf's source code that implimented time >> interpolation for Perf in record mode but it did not include in the >> next official realses of Perf. I just want to know that is there any >> technical difficulty for implimenting this feature in "perf record" or >> not? > > Why would you care about the exact sample count for perf report? > > The only thing that counts in such a histogram is the percent > relationships, which would stay the same if the numbers > were scaled up. > > -Andi > -- > a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- Amir Reza Ghods MASc Candidate, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
