[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160122193752.GB11338@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:37:53 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, acme@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, pi3orama@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] perf core: Read from overwrite ring buffer
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:13:48PM +0000, Wang Nan wrote:
> This is v2 of this series.
>
> Compare with v1:
>
> Fixes several bugs in v1.
>
> Corresponsing perf has finished and can be found from:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/pi3orama/linux.git/
> branch: perf/overwrite-benchmark
>
> Some benchmarking results can be found from [1].
>
> Summary:
>
> On a PC with Intel E5-2640 0 @ 2.50GHz CPU, execute close(-1) 3000000
> times, capture raw_syscalls:* with perf into overwrite ring buffer,
> check total time (in us):
>
> MEAN STDVAR
> BASE : 879870.81 11913.13
> RAWPERF : 2603854.7 706658.4
> WRTBKWRD : 2313301.220 6727.957
> TAILSIZE : 2383051.860 5248.061
> RAWOVWRT : 2315273.180 5221.025
> RAWOVWRT*: 2323970.45 5103.39
>
> Where:
> BASE: don't use perf at all.
> RAWPERF: use non-overwrite ring buffer, perf collects all data,
> write to /dev/null
> WRTBKWRD: Use backward writing ring buffer, write from tail to head,
> never wakeup perf, collect data when exiting.
> TAILSIZE: Use tailsize ring buffer, pad 8 bytes for the size of the
> record for each event, never wakeup perf, collect data when
> exiting.
> RAWOVWRT: Use raw overwrite ring buffer, never wakeup perf, don't
> collect data at all.
> RAWOVWRT*: Same as RAWOVWRT, without this patchset.
>
> The benchmarking results shows WRTBKWRD is good enough. I suggest not
> to implement TAILSIZE and tail-header ring buffer.
yes. just drop patch 6.
> I will post the result on a smartphone next week.
great. would be interesting comparison.
overall I think it looks good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists