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=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 15D12C04EB9 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB12E20834 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:22:58 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CB12E20834 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726789AbeK3LaS (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 06:30:18 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:19783 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726393AbeK3LaS (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 06:30:18 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Nov 2018 16:22:56 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,296,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="96991412" Received: from yjin15-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.239.196.44]) ([10.239.196.44]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2018 16:22:54 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] perf report: Documentation average IPC and IPC coverage To: Ingo Molnar Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com References: <1543505978-19808-1-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <1543505978-19808-5-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <20181129132746.GA8748@gmail.com> From: "Jin, Yao" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:22:53 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181129132746.GA8748@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/29/2018 9:27 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jin Yao wrote: > >> Add explanations for new columns "IPC" and "IPC coverage" in perf >> documentation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jin Yao >> --- >> tools/perf/Documentation/perf-report.txt | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-report.txt b/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-report.txt >> index 474a494..e5a32f3 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-report.txt >> +++ b/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-report.txt >> @@ -126,6 +126,14 @@ OPTIONS >> And default sort keys are changed to comm, dso_from, symbol_from, dso_to >> and symbol_to, see '--branch-stack'. >> >> + When the sort key symbol is specified, columns "IPC" and "IPC Coverage" >> + are enabled automatically. Column "IPC" reports the average IPC per function >> + and column "IPC coverage" reports the percentage of instructions with >> + sampled IPC in this function. IPC means Instruction Per Cycle. If it's low, >> + it indicates there may be performance bottleneck when the function is >> + executed, such as, memory access bottleneck. If a function has high overhead >> + and low IPC, it's worth further analysis for performance optimization. > > Thank you for adding this! > > Just a few small nits: > > s/may be performance bottleneck > /may be a performance bottleneck > > s/such as, memory access bottleneck > /such as a memory access bottleneck > > s/it's worth further analysis for performance optimization. > /it's worth further analyzing it to optimize its performance. > > ? > > Other than that: > > Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar > > Ingo > Thanks Ingo! I will add these fixes in v5. Thanks Jin Yao