Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] perf trace: support for general-purposescripting

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 11:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Known problems/shortcomings:
> > 
> > Probably the biggest problem right now is the sorting hack I added as 
> > the last patch.  It's just meant as a temporary thing, but is there 
> > because tracing scripts in general want to see events in the order 
> > they happened i.e. timestamp order. [...]
> 
> Btw., have you seen the -M/--multiplex option to perf record? It 
> multiplexes all events into a single buffer - making them all ordered. 
> (The events are in causal ordering in this case even if there's some TSC 
> asynchronity)

It also wrecks large machines.. I've been thinking about limiting the
number of CPUs you can redirect into a single output stream using the
output_fd thing, but then the inherited stuff makes that very hard.

And we also need a solution for the inhertited counters, the best would
be the per-cpu inherited things, where we use both cpu and pid, instead
of either.

In short, -M is nice, but it also has significant down sides, esp. with
machines getting more and more cores.

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