[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100520100732.GD5309@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 12:07:34 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Future tracing/instrumentation directions
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:31:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> - [ While it's still a long way off, if this trend continues
> we eventually might even be able to get rid of the
> /debug/tracing/ temporary debug API and get rid of
> the ugly in-kernel pretty-printing bits. This is
> good: it may make Andrew very happy for a change ;-)
>
> The main detail here to be careful of is that lots of
> people are fond of the simplicity of the
> /debug/tracing/ debug UI, so when we replace it we
> want to do it by keeping that simple workflow (or
> best by making it even simpler). I have a few ideas
> how to do this.
How? We can emulate the /debug/tracing result with something
like perf trace, still that won't replace the immediate
availability of the result of any trace, which makes it
valuable for any simplest workflows.
> Regarding performance and complexity, which is our main
> worry atm, fortunately there's work going on in that
> direction - please see PeterZ's recent string of patches
> on lkml:
>
> 4f41c01: perf/ftrace: Optimize perf/tracepoint interaction for single events
> a19d35c: perf: Optimize buffer placement by allocating buffers NUMA aware
> ef60777: perf: Optimize the perf_output() path by removing IRQ-disables
> fa58815: perf: Optimize the hotpath by converting the perf output buffer to local_t
I would like to highlight the following commit too that _totally_
changes the requirements of our next common ring buffer, whatever it is:
c792061: perf: Disallow mmap() on per-task inherited events
Now we only need to care about local contention, we have removed the
support for buffers that contend across cpus in a single process.
Do I understand it right?
> 3) Add the function-tracer and function-graph tracer
> as an event and integrate it into perf.
>
> This will live-test the efficiency of the unification
> and brings over the last big ftrace plugin to perf.
I may start to take care of this soon.
--
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