From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755871AbcGHQ14 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:27:56 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:42977 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755172AbcGHQ1s (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:27:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:27:33 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Ingo Molnar Cc: acme@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org, eranian@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, davidcc@google.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, namhyung@kernel.org, kan.liang@intel.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] perf/annotate: Add branch stack / basic block information Message-ID: <20160708162733.GJ30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20160708133059.031522978@infradead.org> <20160708134113.718203556@infradead.org> <20160708145555.GB17466@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160708145555.GB17466@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:55:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > $ perf record --branch-filter u,any -e cycles:p ./branches 27 > > $ perf annotate branches > > Btw., I'd really like to use this feature all the time, so could we please > simplify this somewhat via a subcommand, via something like: > > perf record branches ./branches 27 > > or if 'record' subcommands are not possible anymore: > > perf record --branches ./branches 27 So: perf record -b $workload, is basically enough and 'works'. > > and in this case 'perf annotate' should automatically pick up the fact that the > perf.data was done with --branches - i.e. the highlighting should be automagic. It does, or rather if the samples contain PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK this all gets automagically done. The reason I did '--branch-filter u,any' is because this example is a very tight loop that runs for many seconds and you get a fair number of interrupts in it. These interrupts result in branch targets and branches that don't exist, and with such small code that really shows up. For bigger code its not really an issue. I've been thinking of filtering all targets and branches that are smaller than 0.1% in order to avoid this, but so far I've just been ignoring these things.