On 6/26/13 10:10 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Sampled H/W events have an adaptive period that converges to the desired
sampling rate. The first few samples come in 10 usecs are so apart and
the time period expands to the desired rate. As I recall that adaptive
algorithm starts over every time the event
* David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/26/13 9:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:37:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the
> >>>intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will
On 6/26/13 9:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:37:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the
intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably recognize
the different weights.
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 17:50 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:37:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the
> > > intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably rec
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:37:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the
> > intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably recognize
> > the different weights.
>
> You're suggesting adding
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:37:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the
> intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably recognize
> the different weights.
You're suggesting adding noise to the regular kernel tick?
--
T
* Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 18:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:46 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > > Running the below testcase shows each process consuming 41-43% of it's
> > > respective cpu while per core idle numbers show 63-65%, a disparity of
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 18:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:46 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > Running the below testcase shows each process consuming 41-43% of it's
> > respective cpu while per core idle numbers show 63-65%, a disparity of
> > roughly 4-8%. Is this a bug,
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:46 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> Running the below testcase shows each process consuming 41-43% of it's
> respective cpu while per core idle numbers show 63-65%, a disparity of
> roughly 4-8%. Is this a bug, known behaviour, or consequence of the
> process being io bound?
Running the below testcase shows each process consuming 41-43% of it's
respective cpu while per core idle numbers show 63-65%, a disparity of
roughly 4-8%. Is this a bug, known behaviour, or consequence of the
process being io bound?
1. run sudo taskset -c 0 netserver
2. run taskset -c 1 netperf
10 matches
Mail list logo
