[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP-5=fV49y9y8Q3-3rhACMQJiQ+nAh0RfysT8bhpJ5_AOqLScw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:55:39 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...wei.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: add new option '--workload-attr' to set workload sched_policy/priority/mask
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 12:19 AM Changbin Du <changbin.du@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:06:31AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > On 13/07/23 11:58, Changbin Du wrote:
> > > To get consistent benchmarking results, sometimes we need to set the
> > > sched_policy/priority/mask of the workload to reduce system noise.
> > >
> > > For example, CPU binding is required on big.little system.
> > >
> > > $ perf stat -r 10 -- taskset -c 0 ls
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, the 'taskset' is also counted here.
> > >
> > > To get away of the middleman, this adds a new option '--workload-attr' to
> > > do the same jobs for stat and record commands.
> > >
> > > $ sudo perf stat --workload-attr fifo,40,0x1 -- ls
> > >
> > > Above will make 'ls' run on CPU #0 with fifo scheduler and realtime
> > > priority is 40.
> >
> > Aren't there ways to set up a process then start perf using -p <pid>
> > then let the process continue.
> >
> By that you need a mechanism to pause the new spawnned process and wait perf to
> attach. Or setup the sched properties by the app itself. But sometimes we just
> simply want to run the app through and measure some events. With
> --workload-attr, we do not need extra setup works.
To my naive eyes this looks to be a broadly useful addition. Some thoughts:
- "cpu-mask" as the command line argument name, this is "-C" and
"--cpu" elsewhere, so perhaps just "cpu" as the mask is perhaps
confusing.
- could we get a test? Perhaps add a case to tools/perf/tests/shell/stat.sh:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/tests/shell/stat.sh?h=perf-tools-next
Thanks,
Ian
> --
> Cheers,
> Changbin Du
Powered by blists - more mailing lists