Ingo Molnar [mi...@kernel.org] wrote: | | * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: | | > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:31:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: | > > PeterZ, | > > | > > Can I have your Acked-by for this one? I guess now the goal is | > > achieved, no?
Being able to profile children with the --pid is a big plus. | > | > So this option allows -t/-p/-u to create one buffer per cpu and attach | > all the various thread/process/user tasks' their counters to that one | > buffer? | > | > As opposed to the current state where each such counter would have its | > own buffer. | > | > If this is what the patch does, then yes, although I would prefer a | > slightly clearer Changelog. | > | > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> | | Is there any reason why we wouldn't want to make this the default | behavior? | | That way we could also lose the somewhat suboptimal 'force' naming: | there's nothing forced really, we simply switch to another ring-buffer | setup ... It would be also good if the man page added a comment on when a user would want one ring-buffer setup over the other. If the main benefit is to have the children profiled when tasks are specified, how about changing the option to --inherit (-I) ? Or for consistency with 'perf record <application>', have --pid profile children by default and let users specify --no-inherit with --pid if they don't want children profiled. Sukadev -- 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/
