DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=b5L/Tq4yzW8SjwG/5ZmWi7XF/iGtSF4elIbIsPaWnZvf81dTqT71ebGcUWe5yJBsYP
         MLeJXSIjQ/W7vGIWb60au54TrM1AYY5Sj9yWyfRBnt16aCjFZg4cC3+5RQg85SOtH74T
         HjRQk/6VUN+MbnOCdiwoA4/POIfEFUweFLPts=
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:57:48 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@gmail.com>,
       Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>,
       KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf lock: New subcommand "lock" to perf for
	analyzing lock statistics
Message-ID: <20091207195740.GC5049@nowhere>
References: <20091115022135.GA5427@nowhere> <1260156884-8474-2-git-send-email-mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> <20091207044125.GB5262@nowhere> <20091207072752.GG10868@elte.hu> <4B1CBEEB.3090800@cn.fujitsu.com> <20091207194802.GB5049@nowhere>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091207194802.GB5049@nowhere>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1835
Lines: 51

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 08:48:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 04:38:03PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > > Also, i agree that the performance aspect is probably the most pressing 
> > > issue. Note that 'perf bench sched messaging' is very locking intense so 
> > > a 10x slowdown is not entirely unexpected - we still ought to optimize 
> > > it all some more. 'perf lock' is an excellent testcase for this in any 
> > > case.
> > > 
> > 
> > Here are some test results to show the overhead of lockdep trace events:
> > 
> >                    select    pagefault   mmap    Memory par   Cont_SW
> >                    latency    latency   latency   R/W BD      latency
> > 
> > disable ftrace        0         0         0         0          0
> > 
> > enable all ftrace  -16.65%    -109.80%   -93.62%   0.14%      -6.94%
> > 
> > enable all ftrace  -2.67%      1.08%     -3.65%   -0.52%      -0.68%
> > except lockdep
> > 
> > 
> > We also found big overhead when using kernbench and fio, but we haven't
> > verified whether it's caused by lockdep events.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Xiao
> 
> 
> This profile has been done using ftrace with perf right?
> It might be because the lock events are high rate events and
> fill a lot of perf buffer space. More than other events.
> In one of your previous mails, you showed us the difference
> of the size of perf.data by capturing either scheduler events
> or lock events.


I'm not sure who sent this email actually. May be you or Hitoshi.

But, anyway you got the point :)

--
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/