From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABD5C43331 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:46:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260D221D7F for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:46:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727697AbfKMKp6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 05:45:58 -0500 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210]:2093 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726138AbfKMKp6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 05:45:58 -0500 Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E888C4C444F589C77A84; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:45:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:45:56 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.202.226.46) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:45:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [QUESTION]perf stat: comment of miss ratio To: Andi Kleen , "liuqi (BA)" CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Peter Zijlstra" , Ingo Molnar , "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Jin Yao , Ravi Bangoria , Davidlohr Bueso , Zhangshaokun , huangdaode , linyunsheng References: <20191109024754.GA573472@tassilo.jf.intel.com> From: John Garry Message-ID: <71f30f49-d8b4-abff-9f75-674dcbb7fad0@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:45:54 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191109024754.GA573472@tassilo.jf.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.226.46] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) To lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/11/2019 02:47, Andi Kleen wrote: >> Relevant code is checked to make sure that the ratio is calculated by >> >> L1-dcache-load-misses/L1-dcache-loads, data "7.58%=30249/399189*100%" also >> >> proves this conclusion. >> >> So, I'm not sure why we use "of all L1-dcache hits" here to describe miss >> ratio, > > Yes you're right it should be "of all L1-dcache accesses" > > Please send a patch to fix the string and also check if this isn't wrong with some other > ratio too. > " 399,189 L1-dcache-loads # 246.396 M/sec 30,249 L1-dcache-load-misses # 7.58% of all L1-dcache hits (18.04%)" If accesses and loads are equivalent, could we use consistent terminology? Thanks, John