lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET 00/16] perf top: Add multi-thread support (v1)
Hi Peter,

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:26:13AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:01:31AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 12/11/15 1:11 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > >* Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>IIRC David said that thread per cpu seems too much especially on a large system
> > >>(like ~1024 cpu). [...]
> > >
> > >Too much in what fashion? For recording I think it's the fastest, most natural
> > >model - anything else will create cache line bounces.
> >
> > The intrusiveness of perf on the system under observation. I understand
> > there are a lot of factors that go into it.
>
> So I can see some of that, if every cpu has its own thread then every
> cpu will occasionally schedule that thread. Whereas if there were less,
> you'd not have that.
>
> Still, I think it makes sense to implement it, we need the multi-file
> option anyway. Once we have that, we can also implement a per-node
> option, which should be a fairly simple hybrid of the two approaches.
>
> The thing is, perf-record is really struggling on big machines.

Yes, but perf-record and perf-top is different. The perf-record
merely saves the data into file while perf-top read events and process
them at the same time without file. So we should choose different
default IMHO.

I want to focus on perf-top for now, once it's in a good shape, I'll
work on perf record/report too.


>
> And in an unrelated note, I absolutely detest --buildid being the
> default, it makes perf-record blow chunks.

Maybe we can add a config option?

Thanks,
Namhyung


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-14 17:41    [W:0.377 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site