Great, thanks! A (corrected) patch coming up... Ashay 2012/3/20 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 15:04 -0500, Ashay Rane wrote: >> Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification! >> >> However, my reasoning behind including the actual count of the events >> was that (as far as I can tell) it is not displayed in any of the perf >> report outputs. I understand that the count is not precise (because of >> sampling errors) but the sampling frequency (-F) can always be >> adjusted to get a more accurate number. >> >> With the inclusion of the count, it then becomes possible to compare >> multiple different versions of a program. Hence the patch. > > I'm okay if you change the wording of the existing message to be > clearer. I'm also okay if you add this extra information if you find > this useful. > > In that case, also have a look at the data generated by perf record -s, > this dumps a PERF_RECORD_READ of the actual counter value at the exit of > every task [doesn't work with per-cpu counters]. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html