[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07750CA2BFE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:56:51 +0000
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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?
NO. There will be no overhead information dumped into perf.data. Just like
current implementation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists