[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180914114725.GB17042@krava>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:47:25 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 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 01:15:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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).
maybe I should explain a little bit more on this
we write to different (per-cpu) files during the record,
and at the end of the session, we take them and store
them inside perf.data
I don't mind having the directory instead, however we are
talking about small amount of code allowing us to keep the
data in single file.. we can always leave it to a special
command line option ;-)
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists