From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753074AbdFSPYw (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:24:52 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:51700 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750844AbdFSPYu (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:24:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:24:01 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Andi Kleen Cc: Alexey Budankov , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Alexander Shishkin , Kan Liang , Dmitri Prokhorov , Valery Cherepennikov , David Carrillo-Cisneros , Stephane Eranian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/n] perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi Message-ID: <20170619152400.GC4555@leverpostej> References: <20170615195618.GA8807@leverpostej> <07a76338-4c71-569a-d36e-7d6bcd10bd74@linux.intel.com> <20170616090938.GB20092@leverpostej> <22a2dafb-de05-199b-54ed-0c3b24349826@linux.intel.com> <20170619124639.GA3661@leverpostej> <20170619133831.GB3894@leverpostej> <20170619145908.GA23705@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20170619150939.GA4555@leverpostej> <20170619152151.GB23705@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170619152151.GB23705@tassilo.jf.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 08:21:51AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I was trying to get a feel for how that compares to what we can do > > today. For other reasons (e.g. fd exhaustion), opening NR_CPUS * n > > You just have to increase the fd limit. The 1024 fd default is just > archaic for larger systems and doesn't really make any sense because > it only controls very small amounts of kernel memory. > > > events might not be a great idea on systems with a huge number of CPUs. > > We might want a heuristic in the perf tool regardless. > > But there's no alternative: we have to measure all CPUs with all events. You can measure the process on all CPUs by using 1 event without a CPU filter, rather than NR_CPUS events. Thanks, Mark.