Re: perf_event self-monitoring overhead regression

[stephane eranian]

Vince,

I take it your test is all about self-monitoring, single event, single thread.
Did you try breaking down the cost using  TSC and rdtsc() to pinpoint where the
regression is coming from in the 3 perf_event syscalls you're using?


On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Vince Weaver <vweaver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> So bisect works really well for clear bugs that are 100% repeatable
>> and have a very clear "did it happen or not" signature, but I'd be
>> very leery indeed of using it with some performance anomaly.
>
> In this case, the bisection case is pretty clean. ÂI run 1000 of the tests
> and check the median value, and the values are always 7280us for good and
> 7440us for bad.
>
> The problem is when it starts bisecting into the merges it drops from a
> post-3.0 kernel into a much earlier 3.0-rc kernel (due to the ARM merge
> history) and suddenly then the test becomes meaningless as it starts
> returning other values such as 6880us. ÂThis is because the problem I am
> tracking has ben gradually getting worse over time, and so I guess by
> going back to a 3.0-rc it gets earlier than some other change that made
> performance worse, and thus it becomes impossible to know if a commit is
> good or not.
>
>> That said, maybe you can get the timings to be unambiguous enough by
>> using 'rdtsc' in user space, and try the bisect again.
>
> I'll try but I'm guessing your first thought that this might be
> un-bisectabe is probably true.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vince
>
--
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/