From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
"Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"acme@kernel.org" <acme@kernel.org>,
"kernel-team@lge.com" <kernel-team@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf mmap: Fix perf backward recording
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:59:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171102145911.GA19184@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077537DC909@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 01:25:08PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> Hi Namhyung,
>
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 04:22:53PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > > > On 2017/11/1 21:57, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > > > >> On 2017/11/1 20:00, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > >>> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:32:50PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> > > > > There are only four test cases which set overwrite,
> > > > > sw-clock,task-exit, mmap-basic, backward-ring-buffer.
> > > > > Only backward-ring-buffer is 'backward overwrite'.
> > > > > The rest three are all 'forward overwrite'. We just need to set
> > > > > write_backward to convert them to 'backward overwrite'.
> > > > > I think it's not hard to clean up.
> > > >
> > > > If we add a new rule that overwrite ring buffers are always backward
> > > > then it is not hard to cleanup. However, the support of forward
> > > > overwrite ring buffer has a long history and the code is not written
> > > > by me. I'd like to check if there is some reason to keep support this
> > configuration?
> > > >
> > >
> > > As my observation, currently, there are no perf tools which support
> > > 'forward overwrite'.
> > > There are only three test cases (sw-clock, task-exit, mmap-basic)
> > > which is set to 'forward overwrite'. I don’t see any reason it cannot
> > > be changed to 'backward overwrite'
> > >
> > > Arnaldo? Jirka? Kim?
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I think sw-clock, task-exit and mmap-basic test cases can be changed to use
> > the forward non-overwrite mode.
agreed, we can change them to forward non-overwrite mode
> > The forward overwrite might be used by externel applications accessing the
> > ring buffer directly but not needed for perf tools IMHO.
>
> The proposal is only for perf tool, not kernel. So external applications can still
> use forward overwrite to access the ring buffer.
>
> > Let's keep the code simpler as much as possible.
>
> Agree.
> Now, there are too many options to access the ring buffer. Not all of them are
> supported.
> I think we should only keep the crucial options (overwrite/non-overwrite), clearly
> define them in the document and cleanup the code.
as you said earlier only 2 modes make sense, so I think perf record should have:
- forward non-overwrite mode by default
- backward overwrite mode when '--overwrite' option is set
and make it clear in the docs, maybe in special perf-record man page section
so far I still like the '--overwrite' option more than --flight-recorder' ;-)
also it's been out there for some time now
jirka
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-02 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-01 5:53 [PATCH 0/2] perf record: Fix --overwrite and clarify concepts Wang Nan
2017-11-01 5:53 ` [PATCH 1/2] perf mmap: Fix perf backward recording Wang Nan
2017-11-01 9:49 ` Namhyung Kim
2017-11-01 10:32 ` Wangnan (F)
2017-11-01 12:00 ` Namhyung Kim
2017-11-01 12:10 ` Wangnan (F)
2017-11-01 12:39 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-11-01 12:56 ` Wangnan (F)
2017-11-02 15:12 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-11-01 13:57 ` Liang, Kan
2017-11-01 16:12 ` Wangnan (F)
2017-11-01 16:22 ` Liang, Kan
2017-11-02 5:34 ` Namhyung Kim
2017-11-02 13:25 ` Liang, Kan
2017-11-02 14:59 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2017-11-01 5:53 ` [PATCH 2/2] perf record: Replace 'overwrite' by 'flightrecorder' for better naming Wang Nan
2017-11-01 10:03 ` Namhyung Kim
2017-11-01 10:17 ` Wangnan (F)
2017-11-01 12:03 ` Namhyung Kim
2017-11-01 13:26 ` Liang, Kan
2017-11-01 14:05 ` Wangnan (F)
2017-11-01 14:22 ` Liang, Kan
2017-11-01 14:44 ` Wangnan (F)
2017-11-01 15:04 ` Liang, Kan
2017-11-01 16:00 ` Wangnan (F)
2017-11-01 16:13 ` Liang, Kan
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=20171102145911.GA19184@krava \
--to=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=wangnan0@huawei.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.