From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755294AbaEHSgi (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2014 14:36:38 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:36045 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753348AbaEHSgg (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2014 14:36:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 20:36:29 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Robert Richter Cc: Jean Pihet , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tomasz Nowicki Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] perf, persistent: Add persistent events Message-ID: <20140508183629.GJ12548@pd.tnic> References: <1396883078-25320-1-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org> <20140506123907.GV32718@rric.localhost> <20140506185826.GF25013@pd.tnic> <20140507170155.GH32718@rric.localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140507170155.GH32718@rric.localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:01:55PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > For general-purpose... Why 512k buffers are ok? Depending on the > event, smaller buffers are maybe good enough, esp. since they are > permanently enabled and use system resources. Or, at some point, 512k > is not sufficient anymore. You don't want 512k be carved in stone. Well, if it turns out that 512K is not enough, it will be changed in perf itself, right? And we still don't care because no matter the size, the persistent buffers overwrite themselves on fill up. If they'd stopped, they're not really persistent, right? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --