[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B1DAC6E.8000605@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:31:26 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf lock: New subcommand "lock" to perf for analyzing
lock statistics
Hi Frederic,
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> This profile has been done using ftrace with perf right?
We not use perf, just operate it by debugfs, the test procedure
is like below:
case 1: disable all trace events:
echo nop > debugfs/tracing/current_tracer
echo > debugfs/tracing/set_event
run benchmarks
...
case 2: enable all trace events except lockdep:
echo nop > debugfs/tracing/current_tracer
echo *:* > debugfs/tracing/set_event
echo 0 > debugfs/tracing/events/lockdep/enable
run benchmarks
...
> In one of your previous mails, you showed us the difference
> of the size of perf.data by capturing either scheduler events
> or lock events.
>
It's not my work :-)
Thanks,
Xiao
> And IIRC, the case of lock events resulted in a 100 MB perf.data
> whereas it was a small file for sched events.
>
> The overhead in the pagefault and mmap latency could then
> result in the fact we have much more events to save, walking
> through much more pages in perf buffer, then faulting more often,
> etc.
>
> Plus the fact various locks are taken in mmap and fault path,
> generating more lock events.
>
> Just a guess...
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists