[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100201092239.GA22578@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:22:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] perf lock: New subcommand "perf lock", for
analyzing lock statistics
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 22:07 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > - We are using the -M option from perf tools which multiplexes every
> > event buffers, which means every cpu commit their lock events in
> > the same buffer. Couple that with the two above reasons, it's supposed
> > to scale at worst.
>
> Why are you doing that? That seems like asking for trouble..
But as i said i already tried with -M off and it didnt cure the slowdown.
that -M was just copied over from perf sched (where it makes sense).
Ingo
--
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