Em Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:09:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:12:11PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > On 11/06/15 17:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Right, so the one wee problem I have is that this only provides sched_in > > > data, I imagine people might be interested in sched_out as well. > > > > That is not a problem although it would be interesting to know the use-case. > > To me it seemed unreasonable to expect to analyze scheduler behaviour > > without admin-level privileges since it is inherently an administrative > > activity. > > I was more thinking about it being used to track event duration inside a > task. Say you want measure the time between event A and event B but got > scheduled out in between. > > ---- A ----] .... [---- B ----- > > If you do not have the sched_out time, you cannot correct for that. > > > > all 3 are already part of sample_id. > > > > You have to decide whether you expect to be able to use an event without > > sample_id. MMAP and MMAP2 both have pid, tid which are in sample_id, LOST > > has id, EXIT and FORK have time, all of the THROTTLE/UNTHROTTLE members are > > in sample_id etc. So it currently looks like we expect to be able to use an > > event without requiring sample_id.
The fact that there is this duplication is because sample_id_all came after those events, but this new one being proposed doesn't have to do it :-) > I think we recently had this discussion: > > lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > > The patch we ended up merging: > > f38b0dbb491a ("perf/x86/intel: Introduce PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLES") > > Does indeed require sample_id. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
