[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YH6jgMWpFXy+pFVP@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:48:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] perf/core: Share an event with multiple cgroups
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:34:40AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> The sampling approach will certainly incur more overhead and be at
> risk of losing the ability to
> reconstruct the total counter per-cgroup, unless you set the period
> for SW_CGROUP_SWITCHES to
> 1. But then, you run the risk of losing samples if the buffer is full
> or sampling is throtlled.
> In some scenarios, we believe the number of context switches between
> cgroup could be quite high (>> 1000/s).
> And on top you would have to add the processing of the samples to
> extract the counts per cgroup. That would require
> a synthesis on cgroup on perf record and some post-processing on perf
> report. We are interested in using the data live
> to make some policy decisions, so a counting approach with perf stat
> will always be best.
Can you please configure your MUA to sanely (re)flow text? The above
random line-breaks are *so* painful to read.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists