On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 21:21 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On top of "PATCH 0/3] tracing: more list_empty(perf_events) checks"
> series I sent yesterday.
>
> Compile tested only, not for inclusion yet.
Oleg, I know you sent me a mbox with these patches, but I rather pull
the real email
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:53 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Oh wait, I just noticed Oleg's:
>
> # perf record -e sched:sched_switch -p1 &
>
> I missed that.
>
> bah, time to re-run it.
>
New update, after running with the above command:
[root@ixf ~]# cat perf-bench-sched.before.2 | tail -20
On 6/20/13 12:47 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 12:35 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
On 6/20/13 12:23 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
I ran this:
perf stat --repeat 100 -- perf bench sched pipe >
/tmp/perf-bench-sched.{before, after}
You want to compare:
perf stat --repeat 100
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:47 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 12:35 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 6/20/13 12:23 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > I ran this:
> > >
> > > perf stat --repeat 100 -- perf bench sched pipe >
> > > /tmp/perf-bench-sched.{before, after}
> >
>
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 12:35 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/20/13 12:23 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > I ran this:
> >
> > perf stat --repeat 100 -- perf bench sched pipe >
> > /tmp/perf-bench-sched.{before, after}
>
> You want to compare:
>perf stat --repeat 100 -p 1 -- perf bench sche
On 6/20/13 12:23 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
I ran this:
perf stat --repeat 100 -- perf bench sched pipe >
/tmp/perf-bench-sched.{before, after}
You want to compare:
perf stat --repeat 100 -p 1 -- perf bench sched pipe
so that event is tagged to pid 1 and not the perf-bench workload.
Dav
On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 21:58 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/19, David Ahern wrote:
> >
> > On 6/19/13 11:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >> not sure these numbers actually mean
> >> something, but still.
>
> Yes.
>
> >> So, the test-case:
> >>
> >>int pipe1[2], pipe2[2];
> >
> > Same a
On 06/19, David Ahern wrote:
>
> On 6/19/13 11:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> not sure these numbers actually mean
>> something, but still.
Yes.
>> So, the test-case:
>>
>> int pipe1[2], pipe2[2];
>
> Same as "perf bench sched pipe"
You just cruelly disclosed the fact that I do not use p
On 6/19/13 11:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 06/19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 06/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I'm probably missing something obviuos, but what are we trying to do?
Say, "perf record -e sched:sched_switch -p1".
Every task except /sbin/init will do perf_trace_sched_switch() and
pe
On 06/19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I'm probably missing something obviuos, but what are we trying to do?
>
> Say, "perf record -e sched:sched_switch -p1".
>
> Every task except /sbin/init will do perf_trace_sched_switch() and
> perf_trace_buf_prepare() + perf
On 06/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> I'm probably missing something obviuos, but what are we trying to do?
Say, "perf record -e sched:sched_switch -p1".
Every task except /sbin/init will do perf_trace_sched_switch() and
perf_trace_buf_prepare() + perf_trace_buf_submit for no reason(),
it doesn't h
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:21:47PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On top of "PATCH 0/3] tracing: more list_empty(perf_events) checks"
> series I sent yesterday.
>
> Compile tested only, not for inclusion yet.
>
> But I'll appreciate if you can take a look. I'll try to test this
> tomor
Hello.
On top of "PATCH 0/3] tracing: more list_empty(perf_events) checks"
series I sent yesterday.
Compile tested only, not for inclusion yet.
But I'll appreciate if you can take a look. I'll try to test this
tomorrow somehow and let you know. Right now I am looking at asm code,
looks correct..
13 matches
Mail list logo
