On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:22:29PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:18:52PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:37:53PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >> >> Em Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:29:59PM -0700, Stephane Eranian escreveu: > >> >> > Hi Arnaldo, > >> >> > > >> >> > I ran into an issue trying to use the --pid filtering option of perf > >> >> > report. > >> >> > > >> >> > I do a system-wide collection and then I want to narrow down the > >> >> > reporting to a specific process: > >> >> > > >> >> > $ perf record -a -e cycles:pp sleep 10 > >> >> > $ perf report --sort cpu,comm --pid X > >> >> > > >> >> > Where X is a process sampled during the run (easy to catch with perf > >> >> > report -D) > >> >> > If you do it this way, it works, but if you do: > >> >> > > >> >> > $ perf report --sort cpu --pid X > >> >> > > >> >> > Then you get an empty output. > >> >> > > >> >> > I suspect it has to do with the way hist entries are added to the > >> >> > histogram and aggregated. If the first event for a sort criteria is > >> >> > not coming from pid X, it will > >> >> > still be added in the histogram. if pid X aggregates to the same > >> >> > sample criteria, then you will lose the pid information. And then > >> >> > later when you try to apply the filter, > >> >> > it will mark the hist entry as FILTERED because it does not have a > >> >> > matching pid > >> >> > and nothing will be printed. > >> >> > I suspect you want to apply the filtering upfront for pid. It will > >> >> > only add to the histograms matching samples. It changes the > >> >> > percentages you will see. They will > >> >> > only report the breakdown for the pid. > >> >> > > >> >> > I have a quick hack to do upfront filtering which does something as > >> >> > follows but I am not sure this is the correct way of doing this. > >> >> > > >> >> > Let me know what you think. > >> >> > >> >> From a first look I think this makes sense, i.e. we should do the first > >> >> round of filtering, one that trows away stuff, for things in the command > >> >> line, when creating the histogram entries. > >> >> > >> >> Later, as we have now, we can apply further filters for non-collapsed > >> >> fields of hist_entry. > >> >> > >> >> Jiri, Namhyung, are you ok with this? > >> > > >> > Stephan is correct with analysis, but I think we need to add both > >> > non/filtered > >> > entries in, because we provide that 'F' key for non/filtered counts > >> > switch in tui > >> > > >> > how about something like below > >> > > >> > thanks, > >> > jirka > >> > > >> > --- > >> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c > >> > index b02992efb513..659e0357be68 100644 > >> > --- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c > >> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c > >> > @@ -536,6 +536,14 @@ static struct hist_entry > >> > *hists__findnew_entry(struct hists *hists, > >> > map__put(he->ms.map); > >> > he->ms.map = map__get(entry->ms.map); > >> > } > >> > + > >> > + /* > >> > + * We have at least one entry in which is not > >> > + * filtered, we want to display the entry. > >> > + */ > >> > + if (he->filtered && !entry->filtered) > >> > + he->filtered = 0; > >> > + > >> > goto out; > >> > } > >> > > >> Works for me. So with this approach the % shown with --pid still > >> represents % of total samples and not just for that pid. > >> I think this is okay as long as this is documented and understood by users. > >> Thanks. > > > > I think we should show correct value depending on the --percentage > > option. I wrote a patch to implement it by addding a > > total_early_filtered_period stat to hists. Following is the result: > > > > > > $ perf report -s cpu,comm --pid 0 --stdio > > # > > # Overhead CPU Command > > # ........ ... ....... > > # > > 12.16% 000 swapper > > 3.09% 001 swapper > > 2.76% 002 swapper > > 2.23% 003 swapper > > 1.65% 007 swapper > > 1.65% 008 swapper > > 1.52% 009 swapper > > 1.51% 006 swapper > > 1.46% 004 swapper > > 1.34% 005 swapper > > 0.94% 010 swapper > > 0.90% 011 swapper > > > So how do I interpret this? > > Is this that 12.16% of all samples comes from pid 0 (swapper) running on > CPU0?
Yep, it's same when no filter used. $ perf report -s cpu,comm | grep swapper 12.16% 000 swapper 3.09% 001 swapper 2.76% 002 swapper 2.23% 003 swapper 1.65% 007 swapper 1.65% 008 swapper 1.52% 009 swapper 1.51% 006 swapper 1.46% 004 swapper 1.34% 005 swapper 0.94% 010 swapper 0.90% 011 swapper > > > $ perf report -s cpu --pid 0 --stdio > > # > > # Overhead CPU > > # ........ ... > > # > > 12.16% 000 > > 3.09% 001 > > 2.76% 002 > > 2.23% 003 > > 1.65% 007 > > 1.65% 008 > > 1.52% 009 > > 1.51% 006 > > 1.46% 004 > > 1.34% 005 > > 0.94% 010 > > 0.90% 011 > > > 12.16% of all the samples collected come from pid 0 (swapper) running CPU0? Yes, I showed it just for verification, when --pid filter is used without the comm sort key it works same as having the comm sort key. > > > > $ perf report -s cpu --pid 0 --stdio --percentage relative > > # > > # Overhead CPU > > # ........ ... > > # > > 38.95% 000 > > 9.92% 001 > > 8.84% 002 > > 7.16% 003 > > 5.30% 007 > > 5.28% 008 > > 4.87% 009 > > 4.83% 006 > > 4.66% 004 > > 4.30% 005 > > 3.00% 010 > > 2.89% 011 > > > Ok, so now I am guessing 38.95% of the samples of pid 0 are on CPU0? Yep, sum of the relative percentage is always 100% and it's all from the pid 0 in this case. > > > > > Note that the --hierarchy option provides groups rather than filtering > > but shows similar result.. > > > > $ perf report -s pid,cpu --stdio --hierarchy > > # > > # Overhead Pid:Command / CPU > > # ........... ....................... > > # > > 31.21% 0:swapper > > 12.16% 000 > > 3.09% 001 > > 2.76% 002 > > 2.23% 003 > > 1.65% 007 > > 1.65% 008 > > 1.52% 009 > > 1.51% 006 > > 1.46% 004 > > 1.34% 005 > > 0.94% 010 > > 0.90% 011 > > 19.15% 8618:getmail > > ... > > > 31.21% of total samples come from pid 0 (swapper) and decompose > to 12.16% for CPU0, 3.09% for CPU1, .... > > Is that right? Exactly. Thanks, Namhyung > > > > > > > > > > > -----------------------8<------------------------------- > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/event.h b/tools/perf/util/event.h > > index 8d363d5e65a2..42b1bfd29ef8 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/event.h > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/event.h > > @@ -262,6 +262,7 @@ enum auxtrace_error_type { > > */ > > struct events_stats { > > u64 total_period; > > + u64 total_early_filtered_period; > > u64 total_non_filtered_period; > > u64 total_lost; > > u64 total_lost_samples; > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > index 37a08f20730a..c7045411cce2 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > @@ -1017,12 +1017,21 @@ int hist_entry_iter__add(struct hist_entry_iter > > *iter, struct addr_location *al, > > int max_stack_depth, void *arg) > > { > > int err, err2; > > + struct hists *hists = evsel__hists(iter->evsel); > > > > err = sample__resolve_callchain(iter->sample, &callchain_cursor, > > &iter->parent, > > iter->evsel, al, max_stack_depth); > > if (err) > > return err; > > > > + if (symbol__parent_filter(iter->parent)) > > + al->filtered |= symbol__parent_filter(iter->parent); > > + > > + if (al->filtered) { > > + hists->stats.total_early_filtered_period += > > iter->sample->period; > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > iter->max_stack = max_stack_depth; > > > > err = iter->ops->prepare_entry(iter, al); > > @@ -1503,7 +1512,7 @@ static void hists__reset_filter_stats(struct hists > > *hists) > > void hists__reset_stats(struct hists *hists) > > { > > hists->nr_entries = 0; > > - hists->stats.total_period = 0; > > + hists->stats.total_period = > > hists->stats.total_early_filtered_period; > > > > hists__reset_filter_stats(hists); > > } > > @@ -1530,7 +1539,7 @@ static void hierarchy_recalc_total_periods(struct > > hists *hists) > > > > node = rb_first(&hists->entries); > > > > - hists->stats.total_period = 0; > > + hists->stats.total_period = > > hists->stats.total_early_filtered_period; > > hists->stats.total_non_filtered_period = 0; > > > > /*