On 11/06/2013 05:33 PM, David Ahern wrote:
On 11/6/13, 4:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such huge
perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that there's
very
little user base ... Anyone who absolutely needs call-graph
On 11/06/2013 05:33 PM, David Ahern wrote:
On 11/6/13, 4:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such huge
perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that there's
very
little user base ... Anyone who absolutely needs call-graph
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:56:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:13:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not an irrelevant feature at all! :-)
> > >
> > > It's just that for any sort of longer profile it was pretty
> >
On 11/11/13, 5:19 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
In what way is call-graph profiling utilized typically?
Is it system-wide, i.e. something like:
perf record -a -g sleep 10
? If yes then that would explain why scalability problems rarely surfaced,
it takes a longer user-space profile to get
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:13:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > It's not an irrelevant feature at all! :-)
> >
> > It's just that for any sort of longer profile it was pretty
> > difficult/frustrating to use, which I think held back adoption.
> >
> > That
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:13:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> It's not an irrelevant feature at all! :-)
>
> It's just that for any sort of longer profile it was pretty
> difficult/frustrating to use, which I think held back adoption.
>
> That performance problem got fixed now by you and
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:12:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you want to add a new -F that adds news way to display
> > fields. Isn't -s enough for that?
>
> Well, -s implies sorting.
>
> With -F we could decouple sorting from display order, and allow output
> like:
>
>
* David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/6/13, 4:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such huge
> >perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that there's very
> >little user base ... Anyone who absolutely needs call-graph profiling uses
>
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such
> > huge perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that
> > there's very little user base ... Anyone who absolutely
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:30:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Ingo,
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:30:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ingo,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > >> But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard
* Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:30:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
But the
* Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:30:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Tue,
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such
huge perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that
there's very little user base ... Anyone who
* David Ahern dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/6/13, 4:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such huge
perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that there's very
little user base ... Anyone who absolutely needs call-graph
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:12:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not sure why you want to add a new -F that adds news way to display
fields. Isn't -s enough for that?
Well, -s implies sorting.
With -F we could decouple sorting from display order, and allow output
like:
# Symbol
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:13:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It's not an irrelevant feature at all! :-)
It's just that for any sort of longer profile it was pretty
difficult/frustrating to use, which I think held back adoption.
That performance problem got fixed now by you and Namhyung,
* Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:13:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It's not an irrelevant feature at all! :-)
It's just that for any sort of longer profile it was pretty
difficult/frustrating to use, which I think held back adoption.
On 11/11/13, 5:19 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
In what way is call-graph profiling utilized typically?
Is it system-wide, i.e. something like:
perf record -a -g sleep 10
? If yes then that would explain why scalability problems rarely surfaced,
it takes a longer user-space profile to get
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:56:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:13:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It's not an irrelevant feature at all! :-)
It's just that for any sort of longer profile it was pretty
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such huge
> perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that there's very
> little user base ... Anyone who absolutely needs call-graph profiling uses
>
On 11/6/13, 4:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such huge
perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that there's very
little user base ... Anyone who absolutely needs call-graph profiling uses
SysProf which performs well.
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:30:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Ingo,
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >> > * Namhyung Kim
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:30:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > >> But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
> > >> different in that
* Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:30:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ingo,
> >>
> >> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> >> But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:30:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
>> Hi Ingo,
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> >> But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
>> >> different in that it *generates*
* Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
> >> different in that it *generates* entries didn't get sampled originally.
> >> And as it requires
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
different in that it *generates* entries didn't get sampled
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:30:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
different in
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:30:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:30:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:30:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
*
On 11/6/13, 4:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such huge
perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that there's very
little user base ... Anyone who absolutely needs call-graph profiling uses
SysProf which performs well.
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I'm not too worried about call-graph 'legacies': it generates such huge
perf.data files which is parsed so slowly at the moment that there's very
little user base ... Anyone who absolutely needs call-graph profiling uses
SysProf
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
>> different in that it *generates* entries didn't get sampled originally.
>> And as it requires callchains, total field will not work
* Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:46:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> I think it'd better to separate the option and pass column and
> >> (optional) sort key argument.
> >>
> >> --cumulative both,total (default)
> >> --cumulative both,self
> >>
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:46:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> I think it'd better to separate the option and pass column and
>> (optional) sort key argument.
>>
>> --cumulative both,total (default)
>> --cumulative both,self
>> --cumulative total
>> --cumulative self
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:46:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
I think it'd better to separate the option and pass column and
(optional) sort key argument.
--cumulative both,total (default)
--cumulative both,self
--cumulative total
--cumulative
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:46:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
I think it'd better to separate the option and pass column and
(optional) sort key argument.
--cumulative both,total (default)
--cumulative
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:58:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
But the 'cumulative' (btw, I feel a bit hard to type this word..) is
different in that it *generates* entries didn't get sampled originally.
And as it requires callchains, total field
* Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:27:59 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >
> >> >> > 2)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is it possible to configure the default 'report -g' style, so that
> >> >> > people who'd like to use it all the time don't have to type
Hi Ingo,
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:27:59 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
>> >> > 2)
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it possible to configure the default 'report -g' style, so that
>> >> > people who'd like to use it all the time don't have to type '-g
>> >> > cumulative' all the time?
>> >>
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:09:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
> >
> > $ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
> >
> > # Overhead Overhead (Acc) Command Shared Object
>
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:48:37PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:09:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >
> >> When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
> >>
> >> $ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
> >>
> >> #
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:09:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
> >
> > $ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
> >
> > # Overhead Overhead (Acc) Command Shared Object
>
Hi Ingo,
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:27:59 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
2)
Is it possible to configure the default 'report -g' style, so that
people who'd like to use it all the time don't have to type '-g
cumulative' all the time?
Hmm..
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:27:59 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
2)
Is it possible to configure the default 'report -g' style, so that
people who'd like to use it all the time don't have to
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:09:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
$ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
# Overhead Overhead (Acc) Command Shared Object
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:48:37PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:09:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
$ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
#
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:09:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
$ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
# Overhead Overhead (Acc) Command Shared Object
* Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> > 2)
> >> >
> >> > Is it possible to configure the default 'report -g' style, so that
> >> > people who'd like to use it all the time don't have to type '-g
> >> > cumulative' all the time?
> >>
> >> Hmm.. maybe I can add support for the 'report.call-graph' config
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:55:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
>> > A couple of details:
>> >
>> > 1)
>> >
>> > This is pretty close to SysProf output, right? So why not use the
>> > well-known SysProf naming and call the first column 'self' and the
>> > second column 'total'?
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Btw., if anyone is interested in improving the GTK front-end, it
> would be _really_ nice if it had a 'start profiling' button like
> sysprof has today, with a 'samples' field showing the current number
> of samples. (We could even improve upon
* Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > A couple of details:
> >
> > 1)
> >
> > This is pretty close to SysProf output, right? So why not use the
> > well-known SysProf naming and call the first column 'self' and the
> > second column 'total'? I think those names are pretty intuitive and
> > it would help
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:09:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
>> When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
>>
>> $ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
>>
>> # Overhead Overhead (Acc) Command Shared Object
>> Symbol
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:09:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
$ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
# Overhead Overhead (Acc) Command Shared Object
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
A couple of details:
1)
This is pretty close to SysProf output, right? So why not use the
well-known SysProf naming and call the first column 'self' and the
second column 'total'? I think those names are pretty intuitive and
it would
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
Btw., if anyone is interested in improving the GTK front-end, it
would be _really_ nice if it had a 'start profiling' button like
sysprof has today, with a 'samples' field showing the current number
of samples. (We could even
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:55:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
A couple of details:
1)
This is pretty close to SysProf output, right? So why not use the
well-known SysProf naming and call the first column 'self' and the
second column 'total'? I
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
2)
Is it possible to configure the default 'report -g' style, so that
people who'd like to use it all the time don't have to type '-g
cumulative' all the time?
Hmm.. maybe I can add support for the 'report.call-graph' config option.
* Namhyung Kim wrote:
> When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
>
> $ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
>
> # Overhead Overhead (Acc) Command Shared Object
> Symbol
> # .. ... .
>
Hi,
This is my second attempt to implement cumulative hist period report.
This work begins from Arun's SORT_INCLUSIVE patch [1] but I completely
rewrote it from scratch.
Please see first two patches. I refactored functions that add hist
entries with struct add_entry_iter. While I converted all
Hi,
This is my second attempt to implement cumulative hist period report.
This work begins from Arun's SORT_INCLUSIVE patch [1] but I completely
rewrote it from scratch.
Please see first two patches. I refactored functions that add hist
entries with struct add_entry_iter. While I converted all
* Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
When the -g cumulative option is given, it'll be shown like this:
$ perf report -g cumulative --stdio
# Overhead Overhead (Acc) Command Shared Object
Symbol
# .. ... .
64 matches
Mail list logo
