public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: acme@ghostprotocols.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf record: mmap output file - v2
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:52:50 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87haci9e31.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <525D44B9.7060901@gmail.com> (David Ahern's message of "Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:35:53 -0600")

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:35:53 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/15/13 1:31 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:55:31 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>>> When recording raw_syscalls for the entire system, e.g.,
>>>      perf record -e raw_syscalls:*,sched:sched_switch -a -- sleep 1
>>>
>>> you end up with a negative feedback loop as perf itself calls
>>> write() fairly often. This patch handles the problem by mmap'ing the
>>> file in chunks of 64M at a time and copies events from the event buffers
>>> to the file avoiding write system calls.
>>>
>>> Before (with write syscall):
>>>
>>> perf record -o /tmp/perf.data -e raw_syscalls:*,sched:sched_switch -a -- sleep 1
>>> [ perf record: Woken up 0 times to write data ]
>>> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 81.843 MB /tmp/perf.data (~3575786 samples) ]
>>>
>>> After (using mmap):
>>>
>>> perf record -o /tmp/perf.data -e raw_syscalls:*,sched:sched_switch -a -- sleep 1
>>> [ perf record: Woken up 31 times to write data ]
>>> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 8.203 MB /tmp/perf.data (~358388 samples) ]
>>
>> Why do they have that different size?
>
> perf calls write() for each mmap, each time through the loop. Each
> write generates 2 events (syscall entry + exit) -- ie., generates more
> events. That's the negative feedback loop.

Aha, okay.  So it mostly matters to syscall tracing, right?  For a
normal record session, it seems that the effect is not that large:

Before:

  $ perf stat -r3 --null --sync -- perf record -a -- sleep 5
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.467 MB perf.data (~20420 samples) ]
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.544 MB perf.data (~23750 samples) ]
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.482 MB perf.data (~21073 samples) ]
  
   Performance counter stats for 'perf record -a -- sleep 5' (3 runs):
  
         5.174476094 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.07% )

  $ perf record -- perf bench sched pipe
  # Running sched/pipe benchmark...
  # Executed 1000000 pipe operations between two processes
  
       Total time: 21.271 [sec]
  
        21.271357 usecs/op
            47011 ops/sec
  [ perf record: Woken up 21 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 5.643 MB perf.data (~246524 samples) ]


After:

  $ perf stat -r3 --null --sync -- perf record -a -- sleep 5
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.459 MB perf.data (~20055 samples) ]
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.463 MB perf.data (~20230 samples) ]
  [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.467 MB perf.data (~20401 samples) ]
  
   Performance counter stats for 'perf record -a -- sleep 5' (3 runs):
  
         5.085910919 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.06% )

  $ perf record -- perf bench sched pipe
  # Running sched/pipe benchmark...
  # Executed 1000000 pipe operations between two processes
  
       Total time: 21.175 [sec]
  
        21.175406 usecs/op
            47224 ops/sec
  [ perf record: Woken up 21 times to write data ]
  [ perf record: Captured and wrote 5.612 MB perf.data (~245206 samples) ]


Thanks,
Namhyung

  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-16  1:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-15  2:55 [PATCH] perf record: mmap output file - v2 David Ahern
2013-10-15  6:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-15  7:09   ` Namhyung Kim
2013-10-15  7:25     ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-15  8:17       ` Namhyung Kim
2013-10-15 12:22       ` Jiri Olsa
2013-10-15 13:20         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-15 13:25     ` David Ahern
2013-10-16  1:24       ` Namhyung Kim
2013-10-15  7:31 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-10-15  7:44   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-15 13:45     ` David Ahern
2013-10-15 13:35   ` David Ahern
2013-10-16  1:52     ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2013-10-16  1:58       ` David Ahern

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87haci9e31.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com \
    --to=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
    --cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox