On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 01:18:41PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:45:35 -0800 > Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:38 AM Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > Also; it seems to me that something PT, or maybe even simply: > > > > > > perf -e branches -e branch-misses > > > > > > would get you similar or sufficient information.
> I currently have one of my engineers looking at the data and may be > sending patches soon. It's basically an entry level way to get into > kernel development. Note, no patch will be sent just because of the > data from the profiling. The task is to look at and understand the > code, and see if it can be optimized (with likely/unlikely or flow > changes). It's a way to get a better understanding of the kernel in > various locations. It is by no means "profiler said this, lets change > it." All changes must be rational, and make sense. The profiler is only > used to help find those places. Can't you just have those same engineers look at perf data? This seems like a very expensive and convoluted way of getting something.
