Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Feb 2019 19:53:06 +0100 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 00/14] perf record: Add support to store data in directory |
| |
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:34:16AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Jiri, > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:20 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 02:37:27PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 02:44:37PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > > Jiri, > > > > > > > > While you're looking at the output format, I think it would be good > > > > time to simplify the code handling perf.data file. > > > > Today, perf record can emit in two formats: file mode or pipe mode. > > > > This adds complexity in the code and > > > > is error prone as the file mode path is tested more than the pipe mode > > > > path. We have run into multiple issues with > > > > the pipe mode in recent years. There is no real reason why we need to > > > > maintain two formats. If I recall, the pipe format > > > > was introduced because on pipes you cannot lseek to update the headers > > > > and therefore some of the information present as tables > > > > updated on the fly needed to be generated as pseudo records by the > > > > tool. I believe that the pipe format covers all the needs and could > > > > supersede the file mode format. That would simplify code in perf > > > > record and eliminate the risk of errors when new headers > > > > are introduced. > > > > > > yep, I think we have almost all the features covered for pipe mode, > > > and we have all necessary events to describe events features > > > > > > so with some effort we could switch off the superfluos file header > > > and use only events to describe events ;-) make sense, I'll check > > > on it > > > > so following features are not synthesized: > > > > FEAT_OPN(TRACING_DATA, tracing_data, false), > > FEAT_OPN(BUILD_ID, build_id, false), > > FEAT_OPN(BRANCH_STACK, branch_stack, false), > > FEAT_OPN(AUXTRACE, auxtrace, false), > > FEAT_OPN(STAT, stat, false), > > FEAT_OPN(CACHE, cache, true), > > > What do you need for BRANCH_STACK?
nothing, I think it's just the flag
> > > I think all could be added and worked around with exception > > of BUILD_ID, which we store at the end (after processing > > all data) and we need it early in the report phase > > > Buildids are injected after the fact via perf inject when in pipe mode. > > > maybe it's time to re-think that buildid -> mmap event > > association again, because it's pain in current implementation > > as well > > > Sure, but what do you propose? >
this:
> > looks like bpf code is actualy getting build ids and storing > > it for the callchains in kernel.. we can check if we can do > > something similar for mmap events > > > > jirka
jirka
| |