[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCHSET 00/37] perf tools: Speed-up perf report by using multi thread (v1)
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Andi Kleen <> wrote:
> Thanks for working on this. Haven't read any code, just
> some high level comments on the design.
> >
> > So my approach is like this:
> >
> > Partially do stage 1 first - but only for meta events that changes
> > machine state. To do this I add a dummy tracking event to perf record
> > and make it collect such meta events only. They are saved in a
> > separate file (perf.header) and processed before sample events at perf
> > report time.
> Can't you just use seek to put the offset into the header
> like it's already done for other sections? Managing another file would be
> a big change for users and especially is a problem if the data
> is moved between different systems.
> Also I thought Adrian's meta data index already addressed this
> at least partially.
> >
> > This also requires to handle multiple files and to find a
> > corresponding machine state when processing samples. On a large
> > profiling session, many tasks were created and exited so pid might be
> > recycled (even more than once!). To deal with it, I managed to have
> > thread, map_groups and comm in time sorted. The only remaining thing
> > is symbol loading as it's done lazily when sample requires it.
> FWIW there's often a lot of unnecessary information in this
> (e.g. mmaps that are not used). The Quipper page
> claims large saving in data files by avoided redundancies.
> It would be probably better if perf record avoided writing redundant
> information better (I realize that's not easy)
> >
> > With that being done, the stage 2 can be done by multiple threads. I
> > also save each sample data (per-cpu or per-thread) in separate files
> > during record. On perf report time, each file will be processed by
> > each thread. And symbol loading is protected by a mutex lock.
> I really don't like the multiple files. See above. Also it could easily
> cause additional seeking on spinning disks.
having to manage two separate files is a major change which I don't
particularly like. It will cause problems. I don't see why this cannot
be appended to the file with a index at the beginning. There
is already an index for sections in file mode.

We use the pipe mode a lot and this would not work there. So no,
I don't like the 2 files solution. But I like the idea of using multiple
threads to speed up processing.

> Isn't it fast enough to have a single thread that pre scans
> the events (perhaps with some single-thread optimizations
> like vectorization), and then load balances the work to
> a thread pool?
> BTW I suspect if you used cilk plus or a similar library that
> would make the code much simpler.
> > Here is the result:
> >
> > This is just elapsed (real) time measured by shell 'time' function.
> >
> > The data file was recorded during kernel build with fp callchain and
> > size is 2.1GB. The machine has 6 core with hyper-threading enabled
> > and I got a similar result on my laptop too.
> >
> > time perf report --children --no-children + --call-graph none
> > ---------- ------------- -------------------
> > current 4m43.260s 1m32.779s 0m35.866s
> > patched 4m43.710s 1m29.695s 0m33.995s
> > --multi-thread 2m46.265s 0m45.486s 0m7.570s
> >
> >
> > This result is with 7.7GB data file using libunwind for callchain.
> Nice results!
> -Andi

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-06 17:01    [W:1.210 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site