[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ob5ht962.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:30:45 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf record: mmap output file - v5
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:17:37 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/18/13, 7:13 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> I think it should be
>>
>> perf record -e cycles -F 4000 -e faults -c 1 --call-graph dwarf,8192 -a -- sleep 1
>>
>> (at least to generate the feedback spiral more efficiently..)
>
> you don't need the cycles. faults by itself works. Each event contains
> 2 pages of data in the sample. With mmap-based output a single
> sample (1 page fault in any process) generates 2-3 page faults by perf
> which cause 2-3 >8k samples to be generated, which generates faults,
> ....
But after perf touches all pages in ring-buffer and stack, it won't
generate page-faults for itself anymore, right?
Hmm.. thinking it again, perf has all ring-buffer pages in memory when
mmap() called, right? If so why not doing something like MAP_POPULATE
so that it doesn't need to generate minor-faults?
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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