First of all, your test case of using sleep and page-faults is not an ideal test case. There should be no page fault events during the sleep duration, you you can't really expect anything interesting. For the sake of easier reasoning I suggest to use the ref-cycles (hardware) event and a busy workload such as awk 'BEGIN { while(1){} }'.
Question 1: It is my understanding that perf stat gets a "summary" of counts but when used with the -I option gets the counts at the specified millisecond interval. With this option does it sum up the counts over the interval or get the average over the interval, or something else entirely? I assume it is summed up.
Yes. The values are just summed up. You can confirm that by testing:
$ perf stat -e ref-cycles -I 1000 timeout 10s awk 'BEGIN { while(1){} }'
# time counts unit events
1.000105072 2,563,666,664 ref-cycles
2.000267991 2,577,462,550 ref-cycles
3.000415395 2,577,211,936 ref-cycles
4.000543311 2,577,240,458 ref-cycles
5.000702131 2,577,525,002 ref-cycles
6.000857663 2,577,156,088 ref-cycles
[ ... snip ... ]
[ Note that it may not be as nicely consistent on all systems due dynamic frequency scaling ]
$ perf stat -e ref-cycles -I 3000 timeout 10s awk 'BEGIN { while(1){} }'
# time counts unit events
3.000107921 7,736,108,718 ref-cycles
6.000265186 7,732,065,900 ref-cycles
9.000372029 7,728,302,192 ref-cycles
Question 2: Why doesn't
perf stat -e <event1> -I 1000 sleep 5give about the same counts as if I summed up the counts over each second for the following commandperf record -e <event1> -F 1000 sleep 5?
perf stat -I is in milliseconds, whereas perf record -F is in HZ (1/s), so the corresponding command to perf stat -I 1000 is perf record -F 1. In fact with our more stable event/workload, this looks better:
$ perf stat -e ref-cycles -I 1000 timeout 10s awk 'BEGIN { while(1){} }'
# time counts unit events
1.000089518 2,578,694,534 ref-cycles
2.000203872 2,579,866,250 ref-cycles
3.000294300 2,579,857,852 ref-cycles
4.000390273 2,579,964,842 ref-cycles
5.000488375 2,577,955,536 ref-cycles
6.000587028 2,577,176,316 ref-cycles
7.000688250 2,577,334,786 ref-cycles
8.000785388 2,577,581,500 ref-cycles
9.000876466 2,577,511,326 ref-cycles
10.000977965 2,577,344,692 ref-cycles
10.001195845 466,674 ref-cycles
$ perf record -e ref-cycles -F 1 timeout 10s awk 'BEGIN { while(1){} }'
[ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.008 MB perf.data (17 samples) ]
$ perf script -F time,period
3369070.273722: 1
3369070.273755: 1
3369070.273911: 3757
3369070.273916: 3015133
3369070.274486: 1
3369070.274556: 1
3369070.274657: 1778
3369070.274662: 2196921
3369070.275523: 47192985748
3369072.663696: 2578692405
3369073.663547: 2579122382
3369074.663609: 2580015300
3369075.664085: 2579873741
3369076.664433: 2578638211
3369077.664379: 2578378119
3369078.664175: 2578166440
3369079.663896: 2579238122
So you see, eventually the results are stable also for perf record -F. Unfortunately the documentation of perf record is very poor. You can learn what the settings -c and -F mean by looking at the documentation of the underlying system call man perf_event_open:
sample_period,sample_freqA "sampling" event is one that generates an overflow notification every N events, where N is given bysample_period. A sampling event hassample_period> 0. When an overflow occurs, requested data is recorded in the mmap buffer. Thesample_typefield controls what data is recorded on each overflow.
sample_freqcan be used if you wish to use frequency rather than period. In this case, you set the freq flag. The kernel will adjust the sampling period to try and achieve the desired rate. The rate of adjustment is a timer tick.
So while perf stat uses an internal timer to read the value of the counter every -i milliseconds, perf record sets an event overflow counter to take a sample every -c events. That means it takes a sample every N events (e.g. every N page-fault or cycles). With -F, it it tries to regulate this overflow value to achieve the desired frequency. It tries different values and tunes it up/down accordingly. This eventually works for counters with a stable rate, but will get erratic results for dynamic events.
Videos
@Alina,
If you read the man page for perf record, you can see that perf record -P will be used to record the sample period, and not specify it.
If you want to record more/less samples and modify the period, you have to specify the command like perf record -c 2 (--count=) where 2 is the sampling period. This will mean that for every 2 occurrences of the event that you are measuring, you will have a sample for that. You can then modify the sampling period and test various values.
The other way around to express the sampling period, is to specify the average rate of samples per second (frequency) - which you can do using perf record -F. So perf record -F 1000 will record around 1000 samples per second and these samples will be generated when the hardware/PMU counter corresponding to the event overflows. This means that the kernel will dynamically adjust the sampling period.
The sampling period can be specified with the -c option, though there is also a -F option to specify the sampling frequency. The defaults are 1000 samples/sec or 1000Hz according to the perf wiki:
Period and rate
The perf_events interface allows two modes to express the sampling period:
- the number of occurrences of the event (period)
- the average rate of samples/sec (frequency)
The perf tool defaults to the average rate. It is set to 1000Hz, or 1000 samples/sec. That means that the kernel is dynamically adjusting the sampling period to achieve the target average rate. The adjustment in period is reported in the raw profile data. In contrast, with the other mode, the sampling period is set by the user and does not vary between samples. There is currently no support for sampling period randomization.
As for what the -P option is doing, the commit message for perf (and the related kernel patch) contains some background. If I interpret it correctly, the option means that for efficiency reasons many equal samples can be merged into a single event that also contains the sample period. The original intent is to reduce the number of generated samples to avoid hitting a "rate limit" that would result in lost samples.