On 20.02.2019 17:14, Alexey Budankov wrote: > > On 12.02.2019 16:09, Jiri Olsa wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22:38PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: >> >> SNIP >> >>> @@ -1147,6 +1193,10 @@ static int __cmd_record(struct record *rec, int >>> argc, const char **argv) >>> fd = perf_data__fd(data); >>> rec->session = session; >>> >>> + rec->opts.comp_level = 0; >>> + session->header.env.comp_level = rec->opts.comp_level; >>> + session->header.env.comp_type = PERF_COMP_NONE; >>> + >>> record__init_features(rec); >>> >>> if (rec->opts.use_clockid && rec->opts.clockid_res_ns) >>> @@ -1176,6 +1226,7 @@ static int __cmd_record(struct record *rec, int argc, >>> const char **argv) >>> err = -1; >>> goto out_child; >>> } >>> + session->header.env.comp_mmap_len = session->evlist->mmap_len; >> >> so the comp_mmap_len is the max length of the compressed packet? > > comp_mmap_len is the size of buffer to encompass one compressed chunk > of data after its decompression. > >> >> any idea if this value might have some impact on the processing speed? > > It increases memory consumption at the loading and processing stages. > >> >> I see you mentioned the size reduction, could you also meassure >> the record overhead? > > Let's get back to this after the code review.
Overhead numbers are provided in v3. > > Thanks, > Alexey > >> >> thanks, >> jirka >> >
