Re: [PATCH v3 1/n] perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 08:39:18AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:24:01PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That wouldn't measure all threads, at least not with current perf core.

Ah; I missed the constraint imposed by perf_mmap().

For some reason I thought that was enforced by userspace only.

Sorry for the noise.

Mark.