[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180914111528.GH24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:15:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 00/48] perf tools: Add threads to record command
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> In fact keeping the files separate has scalability advantages for 'perf report' and similar
> parsing tools: they could read all the streams in a per-CPU fashion already, from the very
> beginning.
Also writing to different files from different CPUs is good for record,
less contention on the inode state (which include pagecache).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists