From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A481C282C4 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449132175B for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:27:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549308447; bh=GtjHPFhh9HvUOhV7g4JedWXXeo95wqLFwxk+LwOvsvo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=ntW60KqRXkcxk+btfm/OqpwP7N23YP3c0N8vFnLnOdY67U/W+FrvFb/54ixfm2uhV ofgUk1N9Ldo/ggJ1Iyg+t+V0+g2kZ3NO7FvGTjqh1OxfwTCDqZs8DxmI9u846oHoOz oGrXw09FXQ0weRCmnpVlb/biE6PvwmZ3WnMDNxTM= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729900AbfBDT1Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:27:25 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56274 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727714AbfBDT1Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:27:25 -0500 Received: from quaco.ghostprotocols.net (unknown [190.15.121.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 147DC20821; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:27:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549308444; bh=GtjHPFhh9HvUOhV7g4JedWXXeo95wqLFwxk+LwOvsvo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=y4HwyPPIRXt+kctW/SHK+8jM4YbZe+5JnOk9cxlobny4kLkDtonHn+O2nwa1M8GmS ME1Z+KFo7gQLDNnd6CeUUhImmktfWUsP0sENEX/ek5Xb3jh0Ht9ZbuE47YyJfR9GEp vNHTE957W+0ImKMJCS60Bl4GjHRiiDSEQemmidRo= Received: by quaco.ghostprotocols.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1F2634034F; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 16:27:21 -0300 (-03) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 16:27:21 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Stephane Eranian Cc: Jiri Olsa , Alexey Budankov , Jiri Olsa , lkml , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Alexander Shishkin , Peter Zijlstra , Adrian Hunter , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 00/14] perf record: Add support to store data in directory Message-ID: <20190204192721.GI5593@kernel.org> References: <20190203153018.9650-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <8d8b3f0d-cea8-2daf-249f-29f485c49a46@linux.intel.com> <20190204103643.GA18141@krava> <6bf24b7d-2bd3-8091-cf49-363c91e4e864@linux.intel.com> <20190204114144.GC18141@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:56:05AM -0800, Stephane Eranian escreveu: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:41 AM Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 02:29:56PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: > > > On 04.02.2019 13:36, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:12:11PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> On 03.02.2019 18:30, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > >>> hi, > > > >>> this patchset adds the --dir option to record command (and all > > > >>> the other record command that overload cmd_record) that allows > > > >>> the data to be stored in directory with multiple data files. > > > >>> > > > >>> It's next step for multiple threads implementation in record. > > > >>> It's now possible to make directory data via --dir option, like: > > > >>> > > > >>> $ perf record --dir perf bench sched messaging > > > >> > > > >> Is it possible to name data directory differently from perf.data > > > >> e.g. using --output option, like this? > > > >> > > > >> $ perf record --output result_1 --dir perf bench sched messaging > > > > > > > > > > > > yep, it's taken into account: > > > > > > > > [jolsa@krava perf]$ ./perf record --output result_1 --dir ./perf bench sched messaging > > > > Couldn't synthesize bpf events. > > > > # Running 'sched/messaging' benchmark: > > > > # 20 sender and receiver processes per group > > > > # 10 groups == 400 processes run > > > > > > > > Total time: 0.177 [sec] > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.316 MB result_1 (7225 samples) ] > > > > > > > > [jolsa@krava perf]$ ll result_1/ > > > > total 348 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 27624 Feb 4 11:35 data.0 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 56672 Feb 4 11:35 data.1 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 30824 Feb 4 11:35 data.2 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 49136 Feb 4 11:35 data.3 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 22712 Feb 4 11:35 data.4 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 53392 Feb 4 11:35 data.5 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 43352 Feb 4 11:35 data.6 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 46688 Feb 4 11:35 data.7 > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 9068 Feb 4 11:35 header > > > > > > Awesome. What do you think about having it like this: > > > > > > $ perf record --output result_1.data ... - writes data to a file > > > > > > $ perf record --dir result_1 ... - or even > > > $ perf record --output_dir result_1 ... - writes data into a directory > > > > > > IMHO, this interface is simpler for a user. > > > > yep, seems more convenient.. I'll add it > > > But what happens if you do: perf record -o foo --output_dir foo.d? Should fail, i.e. either you use single-file or directory output, I think. - Arnaldo