On Apr 4, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > On 04/02/2012 02:18 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > >> Ah, about the load it's because perf sched record adds too many events to the >> recording (and configuring small buffers for perf). Using a smaller set >> of events works much better. > > I tried with a different subsets of 'sched:*' events, but it didn't help > too much - shell interactivity ruins to almost zero for everything beyond > 'perf sched record sleep 10'. > >> One thing I did was to record on /tmp - You have enough memory for this to >> work. > > Even with this, I can see a periodical noise about lost samples. It looks > like that perf subsystem is quite CPU-intensive even for the case where > the workload itself is just a thing like 'sleep 10'. > > Dmitry >
That is quite weird; I've done all my tests with a pandaboard as well. Are you using NFS root? What kind of kernel version? But yes, perf is a hog; ASCII trace output definitely stresses the system. Gimme a few hours to see if I can come up with a record configuration that's lighter. Regards -- Pantelis _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
