On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:54:56PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 09:39:55AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 09:16:25PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 02:32:40PM +0530, kajoljain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/20/20 1:49 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 01:39:24PM +0530, kajoljain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > > > >> This is with your perf/metric branch: > > > > >> command# ./perf stat -M PowerBUS_Frequency -C 0 -I 1000 > > > > >> assertion failed at util/metricgroup.c:709 > > > > >> # time counts unit events > > > > >> 1.000054545 7,807,505 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=0/ # > > > > >> 2.0 GHz PowerBUS_Frequency_0 > > > > >> 1.000054545 7,807,485 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=1/ > > > > >> > > > > >> 2.000232761 7,807,500 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=0/ # > > > > >> 2.0 GHz PowerBUS_Frequency_0 > > > > >> 2.000232761 7,807,478 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=1/ > > > > >> > > > > >> 3.000363762 7,799,665 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=0/ # > > > > >> 1.9 GHz PowerBUS_Frequency_0 > > > > >> 3.000363762 7,807,502 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=1/ > > > > >> > > > > >> ^C 3.259418599 2,022,150 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=0/ > > > > >> # 0.5 GHz PowerBUS_Frequency_0 > > > > >> 3.259418599 2,022,164 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=1/ > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0': > > > > >> > > > > >> 25,436,820 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=0/ # 6.4 GHz > > > > >> PowerBUS_Frequency_0 > > > > >> 25,444,629 hv_24x7/pm_pb_cyc,chip=1/ > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 3.259505529 seconds time elapsed > > > > > > > > > > I found the bug, we are not adding runtime metrics as standalone ones, > > > > > but as referenced metrics.. will fix and try to add test for that > > > > > > > > > > as for testing.. do I need some special ppc server to have support > > > > > for this? > > > > > > > > Hi jiri, > > > > We need power9 lpar machine and need to make sure > > > > `CONFIG_HV_PERF_CTRS` is > > > > enabled. > > > > > > could you please try with following patch on top? > > > > So, can you point me to the cset that this should be merged into? Or can > > it come as a separate patch? I'll put what I have in the tmp.perf/core > > branch, and will do testing, please let me know if you want to fold it > > or as a followup patch. > > sorry for delay.. I planned to squash the change in, but if you already > pushed something out, I'll rebase on top, I will post new version tomorrow > > 1st 7 patches are good to go in any case
ok, I just saw it's pushed out, I'll post a patch on top of it jirka
