[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47f5ddbd-f1cb-1da7-cfca-af67962e6797@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:11:06 +0800
From: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Adding support for setting the affinity of the recording
process
Hello,
On 2023/6/12 23:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:24:26AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> But could you please spell out the use case, why do you need this, is
>> this so common (for you) that you repeatedly need to first taskset, then
>> perf, etc?
>
> I'm thinking this is due to big.LITTLE things where the PMUs on the CPUs
> are different. Intel recently having stepped into this trainwreck,
> there's now a ton more people 'enjoying' it ...
>
> So what people often do it is affine the process to one type of CPU and
> then perf it so that their measurements are consistent.
Yes, it's a scene, the purpose of setting affinity is to ensure the
stability of recorded events.
>
> It all sucks, but given the situation, it might be the best option :/
>
> Ian was working on improving the whole hybrid thing, perhaps he has more
> opinions.
>
Thank you for your reply.
> .
>
Thanks,
Yang.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists