mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Eugeniy Paltsev <eugeniy.paltsev@synopsys.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com>,
	Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com>,
	"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"acme@kernel.org" <acme@kernel.org>,
	"alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com" 
	<alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"namhyung@kernel.org" <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	"jolsa@redhat.com" <jolsa@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: 'branches' perf event mapping differs on ARC and ARM
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:28:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <48cfcbf3-0084-7b17-f30d-371bbb5cbdde@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1543329386.13651.13.camel@synopsys.com>

On 27/11/2018 14:36, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> While playing with perf tool on ARMv7 and ARCv2 processors and profiling the
> same application I got interesting results. Even if we got pretty
> similar total
> execution time and instructions number the number of branches on ARC is about
> three times more then on ARM.
> 
> I dug into architecture
> specific perf sources and found that we map different
> HW counters into generic 'branches' event on ARC and ARM.
> - We use "ijmp" event on ARC which
> counts all jump and branch instructions (regardless
> of real execution flow - even if no real jump happens)
> - We use "pc_write_retired" event on ARM
> which counts only taken branches (Instruction
> architecturally executed, condition check pass - software change of the PC)
> 
> So I was wondering do you know
> which approach is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess counting all jump and branch instructions is correct because we use
> 'branches' event value to calculate relative value of 'branch-misses' using
> 
> following formula:
> ----------------------------8----------------------------
> branch-misses-ration = 'branch-misses' / 'branches' * 100.0
> ----------------
> ------------8----------------------------
> And using only taken branches here is incorrect IMHO. So I guess we should
> map 'br_immed_retired' instead of
> "pc_write_retired" into generic 'branches'
> event on ARM.

But register branches (including procedure returns) are also branches, 
so only counting immediate branches would be just as, if not more, 
misleading.

Robin.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-27 15:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-27 14:36 Eugeniy Paltsev
2018-11-27 15:28 ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2018-11-27 17:06 ` Vineet Gupta

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=48cfcbf3-0084-7b17-f30d-371bbb5cbdde@arm.com \
    --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com \
    --cc=eugeniy.paltsev@synopsys.com \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®