[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56548D4B.1090403@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:16:11 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Cc: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
wangnan0@...wei.com, namhyung@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, kan.liang@...el.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, jolsa@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
jean.pihet@...aro.org, rric@...nel.org, xiakaixu@...wei.com,
hekuang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf record: Add snapshot mode support for perf's regular
events
On 11/24/15 8:40 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> perf-record without his patch? yes, but with his patch it does:
>
> __cmd_record()
> for (;;)
> record__mmap_read_all()
> record__write()
> perf_memory__write()
> event = (union perf_event *)(memory->start + memory->head + skip);
> if (event->header.type != PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE) {
> if (buf_to_file(rec, memory->start, memory->size,
> }
>
> I almost thought that I had been fooled by the difficulty to follow his
> patch and was forgetting that 'perf record' doesn't processes events,
> and hasn't done so for a very good reason: to reduce its impact on the
> observed workload, but that ain't so, no?
exactly. And I missed the above. Thanks for pointing that out.
--
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