[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160113102501.GB9644@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:25:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf record: missing buildid for callstack modules
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:34:54AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> > Have you ever played, when you noticed those overheads, with -N? Or just used
> > the -B big hammer and moved on?
>
> I yelled on irc, jolsa told me to use -B, I moved on ;-)
So I think we should grow mtime protection, to not display incorrect data - and
then that should become the default. (in addition to per CPU recording threads.)
Way too slow recording is something I experience as well - and to have a slow
_performance_ profiling tool is pretty ironic! ;-)
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists