On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:31:11PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > Kan, in your per-cpu event list patch you mentioned that you saw a large > > overhead in perf_iterate_ctx() when skipping events for other CPUs. > > Which callers of perf_iterate_ctx() specifically was that problematic for? > > Do > > those callers only care about the *active* events, for example? > > Based on my test, the large overhead was observed in perf_iterate_sb. > Yes, it only cares about the *active* events.
Great! That should mean the first patch of this series (adding the active events lists) should give us sufficient infrastructure to solve that particular issue. Thanks, Mark.
