[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D0659A7.9030608@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:36:39 -0700
From: "David S. Ahern" <daahern@...co.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf tools: Add reference timestamp to perf header
On 12/13/10 09:48, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 07:39:24AM -0700, David S. Ahern wrote:
>>> On 12/12/10 13:16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>>> int perf_session__create_kernel_maps(struct perf_session *self)
>>>>> {
>>>>> int ret = machine__create_kernel_maps(&self->host_machine);
>>>>> @@ -167,6 +190,9 @@ struct perf_session *perf_session__new(const char *filename, int mode, bool forc
>>>>> */
>>>>> if (perf_session__create_kernel_maps(self) < 0)
>>>>> goto out_delete;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (perf_session__create_ref_time(self) < 0)
>>>>> + goto out_delete;
>
>>>> So, it does record it anytime?
>
>>> Simplest to always add it the header as it does no harm if not used.
>>> To make it conditional means adding an input parameter to
>>> perf_session__new() and then updating all the callers.
>
>>> Is the preference to make it conditional?
>
>> No, I suspect the overhead is plain unnoticeable. And if it becomes
>> any problem one day, we can still make that conditional later.
>
> Right, but it just ocurred to me, can't we encode this in the file stat?
I would not want to rely on stat output for timestamps. eg., copy that
file off box and not have the timestamp preserved.
> Also, how do we deal with:
>
> $ perf record --help
> <SNIP>
> -A, --append
> Append to the output file to do incremental profiling.
> <SNIP>
>
> ?
Is it realistic to expect/allow an append using different perf binaries?
That just seems plain odd. Then, if one invocation used --timehist and
another did not output would be bizarre. Of course an append with a
reboot between tests would cause problems as well.
>
> I now think this should be implemented as a PERF_RECORD_WALL_CLOCK
> synthesized event, to be inserted just before we start collecting the
> other events.
>
> That way, when --appending, we just insert another and use that from
> that point on.
>
> Look at tools/perf/util/event.h, enum perf_user_event_type and look how
> those are synthesized.
I see the thread on this part. I don't have preference; just let me know
what the final decision is. ie., synthesized event versus header entry.
David
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Arnaldo
--
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