Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:06:54 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 00/16] perf top: Add multi-thread support (v1)
Message-ID: <20151214170654.GC23614@danjae.kornet>
References: <1449734015-9148-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20151210080118.GA8664@gmail.com>
 <5E6F0F13-9696-45F1-A0E8-CA0B95020D10@gmail.com>
 <20151211081141.GA21600@gmail.com>
 <566AE54B.1010702@gmail.com>
 <20151214092613.GL6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <566ED644.2010601@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <566ED644.2010601@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2615
Lines: 61

Hi David,

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 07:46:28AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/14/15 2:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:01:31AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> >>On 12/11/15 1:11 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>
> >>>* Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>IIRC David said that thread per cpu seems too much especially on a large system
> >>>>(like ~1024 cpu). [...]
> >>>
> >>>Too much in what fashion? For recording I think it's the fastest, most natural
> >>>model - anything else will create cache line bounces.
> >>
> >>The intrusiveness of perf on the system under observation. I understand
> >>there are a lot of factors that go into it.
> >
> >So I can see some of that, if every cpu has its own thread then every
> >cpu will occasionally schedule that thread. Whereas if there were less,
> >you'd not have that.
> >
> >Still, I think it makes sense to implement it, we need the multi-file
> >option anyway. Once we have that, we can also implement a per-node
> >option, which should be a fairly simple hybrid of the two approaches.
> >
> >The thing is, perf-record is really struggling on big machines.
> 
> I've gone from the 1024-cpu sparc systems earlier this year down to small
> PPC and Rangeley-based switches. For both ends of the scale (and in between)
> I constantly struggle with the options to manage memory, cpu and disk
> consumption.
> 
> There definitely needs to be options (e.g., multi-threaded on/off). For the
> threading options I get the appeal for 1-thread per cpu but other options
> make sense as well -- 1 thread per core, 1 per NUMA node. perf has the CPU
> topology so should not be too difficult.

I think we can use --num-thread option to control multi-threading: 1
for disabling and others for enabling.  In the current implementation,
using 1 thread still use same logic so 1 reader + 1 collector will be
created as well as 1 display thread.  Not sure it'd be better special
casing 1 thread to use different code path.

Anyway, I think it'd be nice to have per-core, per-socket and per-node
options and per-core is a good default then.

> 
> If you have 1-thread per cpu that means you are pinning the threads to the
> cpu? That brings in additional permissions problems.

Did you mean setting sched affinity?  It seems not a privileged
operation doing it for its own threads..

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/