From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932207Ab1CNV4N (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:56:13 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:49306 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751983Ab1CNV4L (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:56:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-url:user-agent; b=pc/YwPH0QX5W6sPwTlOjhDugF0vUAU9qMGfGWO5N44VdZ8gwBMrAhfY0tLRtvSMgod 9aDDz5IeRxA5QVPVzpfkWDDTQigX1LK3uAeoa68s138Qy4ZTdHxc5CbM2UhfqUlaM14H 6vSrzodkjCyALFc2f2wtSJsCzqizry//N2oV0= Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:03 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Mackerras , Stephane Eranian , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Thomas Gleixner , Hitoshi Mitake Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] perf: Custom contexts Message-ID: <20110314215603.GD2388@ghostprotocols.net> References: <1300130283-10466-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20110314204341.GC9388@ghostprotocols.net> <20110314205100.GG6139@nowhere> <20110314210315.GC2388@ghostprotocols.net> <20110314212050.GH6139@nowhere> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110314212050.GH6139@nowhere> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:20:53PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 06:03:15PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 09:51:02PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu: > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:43:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > But starter on a starter? Couldn't grok, could you provide an example? > > I have no strong example in mind. > > But one may want to count instructions when we are in an interrupt and > lock A is held. Those would be and/or starter/stopper expressions, something like: $ perf record -e instructions@(irq:irq_handler_entry(irq=eth0) && lock:lock_acquired(foo_lock))..irq:irq_handler_exit(\1) \ -e instructions \ netperf when all starters before the stopper are valid, we entered a range. > Or count instruction when A and B are held. Using wildcards that matches just the things we want to make it a bit more compact: $ perf record -e inst*@(irq:*entry(irq=eth0) && lock:*acquired(A) && \ lock:*acquired(B))..(lock:*release(A) || lock:*release(B)) \ ./my_workload Parenthesis don't have to be used just for filters :) Just like in C, they can be used to express the list of parameters for a function or for expressions, etc. > Or count instruction in page faults happening in read() syscall. We would need to use 'perf probe' first to insert the entry and exit probes on the page fault handling path: [root@felicio ~]# perf list *fault* *:*fault* List of pre-defined events (to be used in -e): page-faults OR faults [Software event] minor-faults [Software event] major-faults [Software event] alignment-faults [Software event] emulation-faults [Software event] kvm:kvm_page_fault [Tracepoint event] [root@felicio ~]# But then an expression could be used like I showed above for the previous use case you mentioned. > Event range define a state, and anytime you need to profile/trace a > desired stacked state, starters on starters can be a good solution, > thus even a common practice. See above, is that what you're thinking about? > > But I could think of this as a way to express filters: > > > > $ perf record -e instructions@irq:irq:irq_handler_entry(irq=eth0)..irq:irq_handler_exit(\1) \ > > -e instructions \ > > netperf > > > > looks quite natural for someone used to git and sed, i.e. developers :) > > Yeah indeed, I like filters defined in parenthesis after the event! :-) - Arnaldo