From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A26C4646B for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 06:51:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB00120665 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 06:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725954AbfFZGvU (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:51:20 -0400 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:59472 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725790AbfFZGvU (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:51:20 -0400 Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hg1lz-0004ex-De; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:51:15 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace-cmd: Do not free pages from the lookup table in struct cpu_data in case trace file is loaded. From: Johannes Berg To: Steven Rostedt Cc: tz.stoyanov@gmail.com, linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:51:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20190625183245.38d63750@gandalf.local.home> References: <20190619114922.3169-1-tz.stoyanov@gmail.com> <20190625183245.38d63750@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-3.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-trace-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 18:32 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:52:14 +0200 > Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Seems to work, more or less. I now see ~6.5 seconds which is slower than > > it was, and in particular comparing to just a revert (which was ~2 > > seconds), but it's usable :-) > > I'm totally confused. Unless it is a cache miss thing, the only thing > it did was add two branches that should basically follow the old path > with the revert. > > Can you run perf comparing this patch against the revert and see where > the difference lies? I tried, but it looks the same. Then I tried to reproduce and now I see it also fairly consistently just under 2 seconds with the patch, so perhaps CPU scaling or something was throwing me a curve ball before. Sorry for the noise, patch works great. Tested-by: Johannes Berg johannes