From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: acme@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Joe Mario <jmario@redhat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf tool: Fix ppid for synthesized fork events
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:55:44 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <551312C0.4060706@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150325191526.GX162412@redhat.com>
On 3/25/15 1:15 PM, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:51:10AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> 363b785f38 added synthesized fork events and set a thread's parent id
>> to itself. Since we are already processing /proc/<pid>/status the ppid
>> can be determined properly. Make it so.
>>
>> Performance impact measured on a sparc based T5-8 (1024 CPUs):
>> $ ps -efL | wc -l
>> 20185
>>
>> Current code:
>> $ time perf record -o perf-no-ppid.data -e cpu-clock -F 1000 -a -v -BN -- usleep 1
>> mmap size 532480B
>> [ perf record: Woken up 0 times to write data ]
>> failed to write feature 9
>> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.000 MB perf-no-ppid.data ]
>>
>> real 0m26.144s
>> user 0m0.452s
>> sys 0m25.564s
>>
>> With PPID patch:
>> $ time ./perf_ppid record -o perf-ppid.data -e cpu-clock -F 1000 -a -v -BN -- usleep 1
>> mmap size 532480B
>> [ perf record: Woken up 0 times to write data ]
>> failed to write feature 9
>> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.000 MB perf-ppid.data ]
>>
>> real 0m25.743s
>> user 0m0.268s
>> sys 0m25.368s
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Joe Mario <jmario@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - removed loop in place of 1 read and processing a buffer
>
> Hmm, I am not entirely sure this is correct. You made an optimization that
> hides the negative impact your patch does. I would prefer you split this
> patch into two pieces. One with the read loop optimization (which I think
> is great) and the second is your ppid change.
>
> I would then like to redo our test with the first patch applied and then
> both patches applied.
>
From your other response I take it you understand the patch now? It is
a matter of semantics to break this single into 2 -- optimize the
existing code and then add the ppid. End result will be what this patch
shows. Before I do that can you /Joe confirm the performance is acceptable?
Thanks,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-25 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-25 16:51 David Ahern
2015-03-25 19:15 ` Don Zickus
2015-03-25 19:55 ` David Ahern [this message]
2015-03-25 20:26 ` Don Zickus
2015-03-26 21:11 ` Don Zickus
2015-03-26 21:37 ` David Ahern
2015-03-27 13:10 ` Don Zickus
2015-03-27 14:03 ` David Ahern
2015-03-27 14:20 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2015-03-27 19:49 ` Don Zickus
2015-03-27 20:09 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2015-03-27 20:10 ` David Ahern
2015-03-27 20:25 ` Don Zickus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=551312C0.4060706@gmail.com \
--to=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=jmario@redhat.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome