Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1619781188.git.alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com>
 <CAM9d7citW_NGb0vjMM2ytp=Mbq5YNe4GEaWspEkMGf=KAm+ugw@mail.gmail.com> <9f178dde-751f-9ac9-f5a0-fd1bfba3ca32@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <9f178dde-751f-9ac9-f5a0-fd1bfba3ca32@linux.intel.com>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 May 2021 21:47:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cj_nLM2PfSpCjRGKTHdY5G641StHSRgQT-ohWOvJsKEAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/20] Introduce threaded trace streaming for basic
 perf record operation
To:     "Bayduraev, Alexey V" <alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Alexander Antonov <alexander.antonov@linux.intel.com>,
        Alexei Budankov <abudankov@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 5:44 AM Bayduraev, Alexey V
<alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 06.05.2021 9:20, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 12:05 AM Alexey Bayduraev
> > <alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> <SNIP>>>
> >> Basic analysis of data directories is provided in perf report mode.
> >> Raw dump and aggregated reports are available for data directories,
> >> still with no memory consumption optimizations.
> >
> > Do you have an idea how to improve it?
> >
> > I have to say again that I don't like merely adding more threads to
> > record.  Yeah, parallelizing the perf record is good, but we have to
> > think about the perf report (and others) too.
>
> There is your idea about separating tracking records and process them
> first, but these changes can be much larger than my patch and I think
> they looks like independent patch and could be introduced as extension
> of parallel data loading.
>
> I also thought and experimented with the intermediate flushing of
> the ordered queue. This is simple for per-cpu data files (sorted
> by time), but not clear for arbitrary CPU masks.
>
> I think my patch can be the first step to introduce parallel mode
> to the perf tool. It just extends perf-record (already used in our
> vtune tool) and allows to load parallel data in experimental mode.
> Next patches could optimize and extend parallel data loading.

Yeah I agree that we can change it incrementally and good to
know that you are thinking about the next step. :)

Thanks,
Namhyung