Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf, x86: Add INST_RETIRED.ALL workarounds

[Andi Kleen]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 07:47:56PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> [+perf tool maintainers]
> 
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I understand all your points, but there's no alternative.
> > The only other way would be to disable INST_RETIRED.ALL.
> >
> You cannot do that either. INST_RETIRED:ALL is important.
> I assume the bug applies whether or not the event is used
> with a filter.

> 
> I think we need to ensure that by looking at the perf.data file,
> one can reconstruct the total number of inst_Retired:all
> occurrences for the run. With a fixed period, one would do
> num_samples * fixed_period. I know the Gooda tool does
> that. It is used to estimate the number of events captured
> vs. the number of events occurring.

Is that really a problem?

Normally periods are not that small, especially not for 
instruction retired. I don't think you can run such
a small period on instruction retired for
any significant time without throttling.

With sensible periods, let's say >10k, the error from
losing a few bits is very small. It would surprise
me if you can actually measure it.

There will be always much more jitter just from standard
system noise.

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/