[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170619145908.GA23705@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:59:08 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@...el.com>,
Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@...el.com>,
David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/n] perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during
per-process profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi
> > For comparison, can you give --per-thread a go prior to these patches
> > being applied?
>
> FWIW, I had a go with (an old) perf record on an arm64 system using
> --per-thread, and I see that no samples are recorded, which seems like a
> bug.
>
> With --per-thread, the slwodown was ~20%, whereas with the defaults it
> was > 400%.
I'm not sure what the point of the experiment is? It has to work
with reasonable overead even without --per-thread.
FWIW Alexey already root caused the problem, so there's no need
to restart the debugging.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists