[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180910100841.GB15548@krava>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:08:41 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/3]: perf: reduce data loss when profiling highly
parallel CPU bound workloads
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:03:03PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > > Per-CPU threading the record session would have so many other advantages as well (scalability,
> > > etc.).
> > >
> > > Jiri did per-CPU recording patches a couple of months ago, not sure how usable they are at the
> > > moment?
> >
> > it's still usable, I can rebase it and post a branch pointer,
> > the problem is I haven't been able to find a case with a real
> > performance benefit yet.. ;-)
> >
> > perhaps because I haven't tried on server with really big cpu
> > numbers
>
> Maybe Alexey could pick up from there? Your concept looked fairly mature to me
> and I tried it on a big-CPU box back then and there were real improvements.
too bad u did not share your results, it could have been already in ;-)
let me rebase/repost once more and let's see
I think we could benefit from both multiple threads event reading
and AIO writing for perf.data.. it could be merged together
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists