[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161124142747.GA30490@krava>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:27:47 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"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 01:56:51PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 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.
old perf tools will get unexpected events if it's not optional
[root@...-x3650m4-01 perf]# ./perf c2c record -ag
^C[ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
Warning:
Found 1 unknown events!
Is this an older tool processing a perf.data file generated by a more recent tool?
If that is not the case, consider reporting to linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org.
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 2.333 MB perf.data (9370 samples) ]
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists