[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171024092200.wef6b66ecmhrvaja@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:22:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"wangnan0@...wei.com" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
"hekuang@...wei.com" <hekuang@...wei.com>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/6] event synthesization multithreading for perf
record
* Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...el.com> wrote:
> For 'all', do you mean the whole process?
Yeah.
> I think that's the ultimate goal. Eventually there will be per-CPU recording
> threads created at the beginning of perf record and go through the whole process.
> The plan is to do the multithreading step by step from the simplest case.
> Synthesizing stage is just a start.
So, why not do it like the kernel did: add all the threads, create the percpu
files, and introduce a 'big perf lock' (big mutex) that is taken for all the
current non-threaded perf functionality. This should be fairly straightforward to
do and should be 'obviously correct'.
_Then_ start doing the hard threading work on top of this, like threading the
synthesizing phase.
Doing the whole per CPU thread setup/teardown for just the synthesizing part of it
looks like the wrong design.
I.e. what I'm suggesting is no extra threading work, just organizing it in a
different fashion and increasing the life-time of the per CPU threads from 'perf
startup' to 'perf shutdown'.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists