[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190724085325.GB5860@krava>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:53:25 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/79] perf tools: Initial libperf separation
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:23:36AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> This is really helpful and thank you for taking the initiative! I've
> no real feedback other than to offer support.
> We've been looking in this direction to avoid memory overhead in:
> https://github.com/google/perf_data_converter
> Some use cases:
> 1) streaming protobuf rather than perf.data files,
hum, we already have the CTF conversion support (perf data convert --to-ctf),
perhaps we could add support for profile.proto, so you dont need special app
> 2) using libperf inside of a runtime with JIT for a symbolization
> story that can reduce the storage/memory overhead of the current 'perf
> record' and 'perf inject -j'. Something similar is done here:
> https://github.com/jvm-profiling-tools/async-profiler/blob/936a9fea8dafc5d0674860d229a1b3d86d295e2f/src/perfEvents_linux.cpp
I think that once we have the mmap interface in place we can
discuss some higher level interface that would help you
> 3) self profiling with dwarf based call graphs, to avoid stack samples
> being visible outside of the process which could be a security
> concern.
same as above, once we have mmap support I think this is
one of the things we definitely want to add to libperf
>
> Most of our tooling is C++ rather than C, and we run into issues like
> tools/include/linux/list.h using 'new' as a variable name. The
libperf has currently the full object separation, so outside users
dont see its object struct's inners.. that should solve the 'new' issue
> duplication of header files in tools/, the importance of -I precedence
> and the use of -include have been other build system gotchas -
> principally because there are so many files with exactly the same
> name. I don't know if in the reorganization into a library this can be
> simplified.
libperf will be public so the building should be hopefuly simpler
and straightforward
thanks a lot for the feedback,
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists