Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tools: Record total sampling time

[Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>]

Hi Ingo,

On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:36:20 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> 2013-12-02 (월), 13:57 +0100, Ingo Molnar:
>> > So basically, in the end I think it should be possible to have the 
>> > following behavior:
>> > 
>> >    perf record -a -e cycles sleep 1
>> > 
>> >    perf report stat              # Reports as if we ran: 'perf stat -a -e cycles sleep 1'
>> >    perf report                   # Reports the usual histogram
>> > 
>> >    perf report --stat            # Reports the perf stat output and the histogram
>> > 
>> > or so.
>> 
>> I don't think we need both of 'perf report stat' and 'perf report
>> --stat'.  At least it looks somewhat confusing to users IMHO.
>
> Okay. Maybe the --stat option would be the more logical choice, 
> because '--' options can be added arbitrarily, while it would be weird 
> to add multiple subcommand options.
>
> So basically there would be two options:
>
>    --show-stat         [--no-show-stat]
>    --show-histogram    [--no-show-histogram]
>
> Today --show-histogram is the only one enabled by default.

Hmm.. okay, this is possible.  But we have some --show-* options already
mostly for enabling more columns so it won't be symmetric to this level
of control.  What about using plain --stat nad --historam then?

Or we can deprecate those existing --show-* options and convert them to
suggested -F <fields> option and then use your proposal above.

>
> Running:
>
>    perf report --no-show-histogram --show-stat
>
> would give perf-stat output.

Right.

>
> This --show-* pattern could be used in the future, for example to 
> express debug output:
>
>   perf report --show-debug
>
> Or to show other details that are off by default.
>
> 'perf report --show' should perhaps list all --show options that are 
> available currently.

You can do similar with shell completion. :)

>
> Maybe the syntax should be similar to the sort option?
>
> What's your preference?

Well, I think it's good to have separate options (like --[show-]stat,
--[show-]histogram, etc) if they won't grow to many.  But if there's a
possiblity of growing, it'd be more convenient to have single option can
receive multiple values like the sort option does.

>
>> For perf report stat usage, I think there's not much thing we can do 
>> for a single event - the most case.  We can simple show total count 
>> and elapsed (or sampled time) for the event, but it's already in the 
>> header with this patch.
>> 
>>       # Samples: 4K of event 'cycles'
>>       # Event count (approx.): 4087481688
>>       # Total sampling time  : 1.001260 (sec)
>
> That's what I mean, instead of 'this patch' we should utilize perf 
> stat output mode. That will solve your particular feature request 
> here, plus gives us much more: it gives perf stat integration into 
> report.

Let me clarify.  The first two lines were already there before this
patch and I just added last sampling time line.  Those lines are
displayed right above the usual histogram for each event.  They are
displayed by default on --stdio output.

And you want to make it look like perf stat, right?

So what should perf report --[show-]stat do (say there're two events)?

1. display perf stat-like output at the beginning or end of usual output
and remove those per-event info in the header

2. same as 1 but keep the original per-event info

3. same as 1 but also change per-event info to perf stat-like output

4. just change per-event info to perf stat-like output

>
>> If an user really want to see perf stat-like output (without the 
>> usual histogram) for a recorded session, it'd be better to have 
>> 'perf record --stat' do the job (like git diff --stat) IMHO.
>
> Why? Showing the result is a reporting feature really. Firstly we 
> record everything, then we 'analyze', looking at various details of 
> data.
>
> Getting perf stat output could be used to get a first, rough, high 
> level overview.

Yes, but perf report already provides such high level information per
event so I just thought the --[show-]stat can be used to see the whole
picture only.  But I won't insist it strongly - sometimes it might be
useful to see both information together.

>
>> > i.e. a perf.data file would by default always carry enough information 
>> > to enable the extraction of the 'perf stat' data.
>> > 
>> > At that point visualizing it is purely report-time logic, it does not 
>> > need any record-time options.
>> > 
>> > This would work for multi-event sampling as well, if we do:
>> > 
>> >    perf record -a -e cycles -e branches sleep 1
>> > 
>> > then 'perf report stat' would output the same as:
>> > 
>> >  $ perf stat -e cycles -e branches -a sleep 1
>> > 
>> >  Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
>> > 
>> >         34,174,518      cycles                    [100.00%]
>> >          3,155,677      branches                                                    
>> > 
>> >        1.000802852 seconds time elapsed
>> > 
>> 
>> Yeah, it'd be good to have same output both for perf stat and perf 
>> report --stat (or stat if you want).  But I don't think it's 
>> possible to determine multiplexed counter values like perf stat does 
>> unless we use PERF_SAMPLE_READ for recoding.
>
> That's my point: is there any reason why we shouldn't turn on 
> PERF_SAMPLE_READ for these events, and read them at the beginning and 
> at the end of a sampling session?

But adding PERF_SAMPLE_READ to attr.sample_type will result in every
sample has read record in the output, right?

>
> ( some people might even want periodic samples emitted inbetween, to 
>   be able to see a time flow representation of samples, but that's for 
>   the future. )
>
>> > Another neat feature this kind of workflo enables is the integration 
>> > of --repeat to perf record, so something like:
>> > 
>> >     perf record --repeat 3 -a -e cycles -e branches sleep 1
>> > 
>> > would save 3 samples after each other, and would allow extraction of 
>> > the statistical stability of the measurement, and 'perf report stat' 
>> > would print the same result as a raw perf stat run would:
>> > 
>> >  $ perf stat --repeat 3 -e cycles -e branches -e instructions -a sleep 1
>> > 
>> >  Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (3 runs):
>> > 
>> >     28,975,150,642      cycles                     ( +-  0.43% ) [100.00%]
>> >     10,740,235,371      branches                                                      ( +-  0.47% ) [100.00%]
>> >     44,535,464,754      instructions              #    1.54  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.47% )
>> > 
>> >        1.005718027 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.43% )
>> 
>> Yeah, but it can be used only for a new forked workload.
>
> Well, it can be used for anything that perf record can do today, 
> except maybe the Ctrl-C method of measurement, right?

I'm not sure I understood you correctly.  How do you repeat if you
attach to an existing process (as it can be terminated in the middle)?

>
>> > Or something like that. At that point we share reporting between 
>> > perf stat and perf report, no special ad-hoc options are needed to 
>> > just measure and report timestamps, it would all be a 'natural' 
>> > side effect of having perf stat.
>> > 
>> > What do you think?
>> 
>> I think it'd be better if we can share code as much as possible.  
>> And it'd much better if we can forget about the difference in 
>> options. :)
>
> Agreed - see the --show-<xyz> pattern I suggested above.
>
> It could be different as well, sort-key alike:
>
>    --show +stat,-hist,+debug
>

See my comment above.

Thanks,
Namhyung