Hi Peter and Jiri, On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:17:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 12:36:11PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: >> hi, >> sending the support for multiple file storage. Initial >> RFC is here: >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137408381902423&w=2 >> >> v2 changes: >> - reworked perf mmap size setup to be able to get >> the mmap size value easily later >> - added perf.data read/write test for v2 and v3 >> for both endianity >> - added record '-M time' support > > So this 0/n post seems to have forgotten to list the rationale for doing > all this.. > > The only reason I wanted this is so that each thread can write its own > data. The current one file thing is an immense bottle-neck for big > machines.
Per-thread or per-cpu? In my perf ftrace patchset, I used to per-cpu data file for this reason. Do you think per-thread approach is better than per-cpu one? Jiri, one of my colleagues asked me about the multiple file support separated by time while ago. At that time I just added --time-filter option to perf report, but it'd better if perf record can support it. (Unfortunately the patch seems to buried in the list). Anyway, as Peter said, please consider per-thread or per-cpu multiple file support with your series. It will help further developments. Thanks, Namhyung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
