From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, eranian@google.com,
ak@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Update event buffer tail when overwriting old events
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:31:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130709143150.GL25631@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51DC1591.7070907@intel.com>
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 09:52:17PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 04:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 03:05:41PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you for your help. I ran the same test, the results for regular case
> >> are much better. But it still has about 1% overhead, probably because we
> >> enlarge the ring_buffer structure, make it less cache friendly.
> >>
> >> origin with the patch
> >> AVG 1000 1013
> >> STDEV 13.4 15.0
> >
> > And this is the !overwrite case, right? I don't suppose you cured the logic
> > Namhyung Kim pointed out? That should affect the overwrite case I suppose since
> > it won't switch to perf_event_output_overwrite().
>
> yes, it's the overwrite case.
So the most common case is the !overwrite one; we should ensure no significant
regression there. The overwrite case isn't used that much because as you've
found its really hard to use without a valid tail pointer. So I'm not too
bothered about making the overwrite case a _little_ more expensive if that
makes it far more usable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-09 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-06 5:58 [PATCH] perf: Update event buffer tail when overwriting old events Yan, Zheng
2013-06-18 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-08 12:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-09 6:18 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-07-09 7:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-09 7:05 ` Yan, Zheng
2013-07-09 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-09 13:52 ` Yan, Zheng
2013-07-09 14:31 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2013-07-10 11:37 ` Yan, Zheng
2013-07-10 11:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-11 0:46 ` Yan, Zheng
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=20130709143150.GL25631@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=zheng.z.yan@intel.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.