[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161124135043.GF3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:50:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"wangnan0@...wei.com" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] perf/x86: Introduce PERF_RECORD_OVERHEAD
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 01:45:28PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > I think we should make this optional/configurable like the rest of the aux
> > events, like below..
> >
>
> The overhead logging only happens when event is going to be disabled or
> the task is scheduling out. It should not be much and expensive.
>
> Peter,
>
> What do you think?
> Should we make it configurable?
Is there a downside to having it optional?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists