[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTim4UdMxxPkhHjVd_433Uk2QoVXBTy44KUlRBNSX@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:54:46 -0700
From: Arun Sharma <aruns@...gle.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
davem@...emloft.net, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: implement recording/reporting per-cpu samples
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...stprotocols.net> wrote:
> Em Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:16:12AM -0700, Arun Sharma escreveu:
>> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 11:16:38AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > > In a shared multi-core environment, users want to analyze why their
>> > > program was slow. In particular, if the code ran slower only on
>> > > certain CPUs due to interference from other programs or kernel
>> > > threads, they want to know that.
>> >
>> > But for that you use perf record -a, right? So you record all cpus
>> > allways -- otherwise there is no telling what was happening to make it
>> > go slow.
>>
>> The updated patch records the CPU only in the system_wide mode.
>
> I think this should be done only if you'll actually need it, as in,
> "cpu" is one of the sort keys, but that can be done as a followup patch,
> but there is another thing I think you need to change, see below.
>
How would you know if the user is going to sort by cpu at "perf record" time?
Thanks for taking care of the second part.
-Arun
--
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