On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:04:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Example output (view in non-proportial font):
> >
> > Performance counter stats for 'true' (10 runs):
> >
> > 0.175672 task-clock (msec) #0.555 CPUs utilized
> > ( +- 1.77% ) █▄▁▁..
> >
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:04:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Example output (view in non-proportial font):
Performance counter stats for 'true' (10 runs):
0.175672 task-clock (msec) #0.555 CPUs utilized
( +- 1.77% ) █▄▁▁..
* Jiri Olsa wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> perf stat -rX prints the stddev for multiple measurements.
Call it "--repeat X", that's how most people know it.
> Just looking at the stddev for judging the quality of the data
> is a bit dangerous The simplest sanity check is to just look
From: Andi Kleen
perf stat -rX prints the stddev for multiple measurements.
Just looking at the stddev for judging the quality of the data
is a bit dangerous The simplest sanity check is to just look
at a simple plot. This patchs add a sparkline to the end
of the measurements to make it simple
From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com
perf stat -rX prints the stddev for multiple measurements.
Just looking at the stddev for judging the quality of the data
is a bit dangerous The simplest sanity check is to just look
at a simple plot. This patchs add a sparkline to the end
of the measurements
* Jiri Olsa jo...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com
perf stat -rX prints the stddev for multiple measurements.
Call it --repeat X, that's how most people know it.
Just looking at the stddev for judging the quality of the data
is a bit dangerous The simplest sanity
6 matches
Mail list logo
