On 03/20/2015 04:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:41:54PM -0400, William Cohen wrote:
>>
>> There isn't any desire to aggregate the different cgroup data
>> together. The desired grouping is measurements per cgroup, kind of
>> like the pid scoping for perf but for a cgroup.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:41:54PM -0400, William Cohen wrote:
>
> There isn't any desire to aggregate the different cgroup data
> together. The desired grouping is measurements per cgroup, kind of
> like the pid scoping for perf but for a cgroup. It is just that the
> way that the perf event mea
On 03/20/2015 03:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:10:39PM -0400, William Cohen wrote:
>> cgroup monitoring
>>
>> The cgroup monitoring is built on the perf event per cpu monitoring.
>> If the cgroup is not pinned to a particular set of processors, then
>> systemwide monitor
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:10:39PM -0400, William Cohen wrote:
> cgroup monitoring
>
> The cgroup monitoring is built on the perf event per cpu monitoring.
> If the cgroup is not pinned to a particular set of processors, then
> systemwide monitoring for that cgroup needs to be done and a perf
> ev
The current perf event interface avoids complexity in the kernel by
making the user-space responsible for opening a file descriptor for
each cpu to monitor performance events. However, there are two use
cases where this approach has issues: handling system-wide
measurements with hotplug cpus and m
5 matches
Mail list logo