On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:28:42PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Hi Namhyung, > > Em Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:12:04AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:30:21PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:37:28PM -0800, Brendan Gregg escreveu: > > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > This is what Brendan requested on the perf-users mailing list [1] to > > > > > support FlameGraphs [2] more efficiently. This patchset adds a few > > > > > more callchain options to adjust the output for it. > > > > > > At first, 'folded' output mode was added. The folded output puts all > > > > > calchain nodes in a line separated by semicolons, a space and the > > > > > value. Now it only supports --stdio as other UI provides some way of > > > > > folding/expanding callchains dynamically. > > > > > > The value is now can be one of 'percent', 'period', or 'count'. The > > > > > percent is current default output and the period is the raw number of > > > > > sample periods. The count is the number of samples for each > > > > > callchain. > > > > > > Here's an example: > > > > > > $ perf report --no-children --show-nr-samples --stdio -g > > > > > folded,count > > > > > ... > > > > > 39.93% 80 swapper [kernel.vmlinux] [k] intel_idel > > > > > > > > > > intel_idle;cpuidle_enter_state;cpuidle_enter;call_cpuidle;cpu_startup_entry;start_secondary > > > > > 57 > > > > > > > > > > intel_idle;cpuidle_enter_state;cpuidle_enter;call_cpuidle;cpu_startup_entry;rest_init;... > > > > > 23 > > > > > So for the folded output I don't need the summary line (the row of > > > > columns printed by hist_entry__snprintf()), and don't need anything > > > > except folded stacks and the counts. If working with the existing > > > > stdio interface is making it harder than it needs to be, might it be > > > > I don't think it so, just add some flag asking for that > > > hist_entry__snprintf() to be supressed, ideas for a long option name? > > > > Having it as Namhyung did may have value for some people as a more > > > compact way to show the callchains together with the hist_entry line. > > > Yeah, I'd keep the hist entry line unless it's too hard to > > parse/filter. IMHO it's just a way to show callchains, so no need to > > What I suggested was to have something like: > > $ perf report --no-children --no-hists --stdio -g folded,count > ^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^ > ... > > intel_idle;cpuidle_enter_state;cpuidle_enter;call_cpuidle;cpu_startup_entry;start_secondary > 57 > > intel_idle;cpuidle_enter_state;cpuidle_enter;call_cpuidle;cpu_startup_entry;rest_init;... > 23 > > I.e. the first entry in the callchain is 'intel_idle', just like in what > Brendan called the 'summary line', i.e. reduntant when what he wants its > just all the callchains and how many times they were sampled.
Yep, I know. But isn't 'perf report' all for seeing hist lines? :) I'm not insisting it strongly, but it's a bit strange for me if perf report doesn't show any hist lines.. > > > have separate output mode.. > > > Brendan, I guess you still need to know other info like cpu or pid, no? > > Possibly, but just with the callchains he has enough info for the basic > flame graph, no? > > > And I feel like it'd be better to put the count before the callchains > > for consistency like below. Is it OK to you? > > Consistency with what? Oh, I meant consistency with other callchain output style like graph, fractal or flat - They all show the numbers before callchains. And I think it's easier to read for human. :) > > The main thing here is the callchain, all the other stuff are things > related to it, so showing it first makes sense to me. > > Having some way to list the desired info to have for each callchain may > be interesting, and if he could do it like: > > -g folded,count,cpu,other,fields > > then he would know how to parse the per-callchain info at the end of > each line, right? Hmm.. looks like that it ends up having redundant info. I don't think it's generally useful to other 'perf report' stuffs. Wouldn't it be better just adding minimal support and let the external tool parse the output? Thanks, Namhyung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
