[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwkQUrsG6JFVuL5u_0waLPrYqsgHtKRnMHD-Tz0KivaNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 08:48:38 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Perf events warning..
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>>
>> It did use "make -j64 test" to make the load a *bit* more interesting
>> (and go noticeably faster), but other than that you got it.
>
> OK, that limits the scope of crazy scenarios I have to consider, still
> no immediate clue though..
Actually, looking into my history, some of them had "-fg", and some of
them used "cycles:p". It looks like I had three different combinations
I used:
- the one I already mentioned:
perf record -f -e cycles:pp make -j64 test
- two variations of the above:
perf record -fg -e cycles:p make -j64 test
perf record -fg -e cycles:pp make -j64 test
and I don't know which of these caused the warning.
I did profile some other things too (I commonly do profiles of "git
diff" and "make -j" on a fully built kernel), but they used the same
flags, so from a perf standpoint they shouldn't be all that different.
Linus
--
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