[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131118090117.GE3866@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:01:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf record: mmap output file - v5
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 09:41:53AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/13/13, 4:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>one option here is not allow page faults and system wide system calls.
> >>>system wide tracing needs mmap; page faults for a task can use write().
> >>>I left that option in case something like this came up.
> >>
> >>So maybe splice() sounds like the right long term solution after all? :-/
> >
> >Right until you put a tracepoint (kprobe) somewhere in whatever function
> >is used to transfer a single page into/from a splice pipe.
> >
> >You can always screw yourself over using this stuff, no exceptions.
> >
>
> What now? Can we add the mmap path as an option?
I'd say an option is always a possibility, but someone please try what
happens if you use stupid large events (dwarf stack copies) on
PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS (.period=1) while recording with mmap().
The other option is to simply disallow PERF_SAMPLE_STACK_USER for that
event.
Personally I think 8k copies for every event are way stupid anyway,
that's a metric ton of data at a huge cost.
--
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