Ingo Molnar [mi...@kernel.org] wrote:
|
| * Peter Zijlstra 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 t
* Peter Zijlstra 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?
>
> So this option allows -t/-p/-u to create one buffer per cpu and attach
> all the vari
Em Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 09:40:01AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:31:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Can I have your Acked-by for this one? I guess now the goal is
> > achieved, no?
> So this option allows -t/-p/-u to create one buffer per cpu and
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?
So this option allows -t/-p/-u to create one buffer per cpu and attach
all the various thread/process/user tasks' their coun
On 05/11/13 19:31, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> PeterZ,
>
> Can I have your Acked-by for this one? I guess now the goal is
> achieved, no?
Ping
>
> - Arnaldo
>
> Em Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:25:45AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Ji
PeterZ,
Can I have your Acked-by for this one? I guess now the goal is
achieved, no?
- Arnaldo
Em Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:25:45AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Adrian
Em Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > > right, I haven't considered the hundreds CPU machine.. I just
> > > saw that it disables inherited events in my test ;-) maybe we
> > > could mentioned that somewhere
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
> >> Another advantage of per-thread mmaps is that you do not
> >> need to sample time (nor cpu), because the events are recorded
> >> in order.
> >>
> >> I was adding a feature. Users can choose per-cpu mmaps if
> >> they want.
On 05/11/13 11:42, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:28:38AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 04/11/13 17:29, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:51:34PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
By default, when tasks are specified (i.e. -p, -t
or -u options) per-thread mmaps
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:28:38AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 04/11/13 17:29, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:51:34PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >> By default, when tasks are specified (i.e. -p, -t
> >> or -u options) per-thread mmaps are created. Add
> >> an option to ove
On 04/11/13 17:29, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:51:34PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> By default, when tasks are specified (i.e. -p, -t
>> or -u options) per-thread mmaps are created. Add
>> an option to override that and force per-cpu mmaps.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
