On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 11:43 PM Alexey Budankov > <alexey.budan...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 27.10.2020 15:21, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:37:58AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: > > >> I agree perf report OOM issue can exist on really-big servers but data > > >> directories support for report mode for not-so-big servers and desktops > > >> is already enabled with this smaller change. Also really-big-servers > > >> come with really-big amount of memory and collection could possibly be > > >> limited to only interesting phases of execution so the issue could likely > > >> be avoided. At the same time threaded trace streaming could clarify on > > >> real use cases that are blocked by perf report OOM issue and that would > > >> clarify on exact required solution. So perf report OOM issue shouldn't > > >> be the showstopper for upstream of threaded trace streaming. > > > > > > so the short answer is no, right? ;-) > > > > Answer to what question? Resolve OOM in perf report for data directories? > > I don't see a simple solution for that. The next issue after OOM is resolved > > is a very long processing of data directories. And again there is no simple > > solution for that as well. But it still need progress in order to be > > resolved > > eventually. > > I think we should find a better way than just adding all events to the > ordered events queue in memory then processing them one by one. > > Separating tracking events (FORK/MMAP/...) might be the first step.
I recall seeing this change before for threaded perf report, maybe even from you, right? ;-) jirka > > Thanks > Namhyung >