perf

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44866699/can-perf-record-or-perf-record-sample-child-processes

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62851367/how-to-count-number-of-executed-instructions-of-a-process-id-including-child-pro

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64076497/how-to-count-number-of-executed-instructions-of-a-process-id-including-all-futur

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64076497/how-to-count-number-of-executed-instructions-of-a-process-id-including-all-futur

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64076497/how-to-count-number-of-executed-instructions-of-a-process-id-including-all-futur

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64076497/how-to-count-number-of-executed-instructions-of-a-process-id-including-all-futur

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63990981/why-does-cmp-instruction-cost-too-much-time

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61425982/what-is-meaning-of-timestamp-in-perf

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61425982/what-is-meaning-of-timestamp-in-perf

问题 I'm trying to understand the cache misses recorded by perf. I have a minimal program: int main(void) { return 0; } If I compile this: gcc -std=c99 -W -Wall -Werror -O3 -S -o test.S test.c I get an expectedly small program: .file "test.c" .section .text.startup,"ax",@progbits .p2align 4,,15 .globl main .type main, @function main: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc xorl %eax, %eax ret .cfi_endproc .LFE0: .size main, .-main .ident "GCC: (Debian 4.7.2-5) 4.7.2" .section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits With only