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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox