[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <525DF2CA.1060102@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:58:34 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC: acme@...stprotocols.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf record: mmap output file - v2
On 10/15/13 7:52 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Aha, okay. So it mostly matters to syscall tracing, right? For a
> normal record session, it seems that the effect is not that large:
Yes, that's in the description "When recording raw_syscalls for the
entire system"
There is a small benefit to all record sessions -- mmap+memcpy has less
overhead than write(). I still need to look at Ingo's suggestion to use
non-temporal stores which might reduce the overhead of the memcpy.
Try a workload that generates a HUGE data file -- say a full kernel
build (e.g., perf record -g -- make O=/tmp/kbuild -j 16). You should see
a much larger benefit from the mmap route. Be sure to use your callchain
enhancements to look at that 1+G file. ;-)
David
--
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