From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755828AbcGHPH7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:07:59 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:36762 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755652AbcGHPHx (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:07:53 -0400
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:07:51 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, walken@google.com,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace
Message-ID: <20160708150749.GI30200@lerouge>
References: <1467628075-7289-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20160707101740.GF2279@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160708100819.GA17300@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160708100819.GA17300@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > I suggested this patch on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/20/22. However,
> > > I want to proceed saperately since it's somewhat independent from each
> > > other. Frankly speaking, I want this patchset to be accepted at first so
> > > that the crossfeature can use this optimized save_stack_trace_norm()
> > > which makes crossrelease work smoothly.
> > 
> > What do you think about this way to improve it?
> 
> I like both of your improvements, the speed up is impressive:
> 
>   [    2.327597] save_stack_trace() takes 87114 ns
>   ...
>   [    2.781694] save_stack_trace() takes 20044 ns
>   ...
>   [    3.103264] save_stack_trace takes 3821 (sched_lock)
> 
> Could you please also measure call graph recording (perf record -g), how much 
> faster does it get with your patches and what are our remaining performance hot 
> spots?

I don't think it will impact much perf because print_context_stack_bp() checks
ops->address() which return perf_callchain_store() which tells if we crossed
the buffer limit.

But it's worth checking anyway.

Thanks.