[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100512171129.GA17184@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:11:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Pierre Tardy <tardyp@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
arjan@...radead.org, ziga.mahkovec@...il.com,
davem <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Perf and ftrace [was Re: PyTimechart]
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 18:46 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But there is no strong reason for perf record not to use splice,
> > a part the fact that perf doesn't support splice.
>
> Its mostly an interface/api question. You cannot easily splice() a mmap()'ed
> buffer on machines that have address constraints like sparc.
>
> The thing I was thinking about is adding a new syscall that creates a single
> buffer of specified size and provides a fd. Then use
> PERF_EVENT_IOC_SET_OUTPUT, to connect an event to that fd/buffer and use
> splice() on that fd.
>
> It could reuse most of the perf buffer code, but simply not map it into
> userspace and therefore not have the restriction on the vaddr.
>
> Once you have that, a .splice_read implementation shouldn't be too hard.
That would be a really cool approach. Since most of the performance-sensitive
streaming happens in the likes of perf record, the actual interface can be
enhanced with no effect to the end user.
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