lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH 00/14] perf record: Add support to store data in directory
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:27 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Em Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:56:05AM -0800, Stephane Eranian escreveu:
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:41 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 02:29:56PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> > > > On 04.02.2019 13:36, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:12:11PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 03.02.2019 18:30, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > >>> hi,
> > > > >>> this patchset adds the --dir option to record command (and all
> > > > >>> the other record command that overload cmd_record) that allows
> > > > >>> the data to be stored in directory with multiple data files.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It's next step for multiple threads implementation in record.
> > > > >>> It's now possible to make directory data via --dir option, like:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> $ perf record --dir perf bench sched messaging
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is it possible to name data directory differently from perf.data
> > > > >> e.g. using --output option, like this?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> $ perf record --output result_1 --dir perf bench sched messaging
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > yep, it's taken into account:
> > > > >
> > > > > [jolsa@krava perf]$ ./perf record --output result_1 --dir ./perf bench sched messaging
> > > > > Couldn't synthesize bpf events.
> > > > > # Running 'sched/messaging' benchmark:
> > > > > # 20 sender and receiver processes per group
> > > > > # 10 groups == 400 processes run
> > > > >
> > > > > Total time: 0.177 [sec]
> > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.316 MB result_1 (7225 samples) ]
> > > > >
> > > > > [jolsa@krava perf]$ ll result_1/
> > > > > total 348
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 27624 Feb 4 11:35 data.0
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 56672 Feb 4 11:35 data.1
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 30824 Feb 4 11:35 data.2
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 49136 Feb 4 11:35 data.3
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 22712 Feb 4 11:35 data.4
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 53392 Feb 4 11:35 data.5
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 43352 Feb 4 11:35 data.6
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 46688 Feb 4 11:35 data.7
> > > > > -rw-------. 1 jolsa jolsa 9068 Feb 4 11:35 header
> > > >
> > > > Awesome. What do you think about having it like this:
> > > >
> > > > $ perf record --output result_1.data ... - writes data to a file
> > > >
> > > > $ perf record --dir result_1 ... - or even
> > > > $ perf record --output_dir result_1 ... - writes data into a directory
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, this interface is simpler for a user.
> > >
> > > yep, seems more convenient.. I'll add it
> > >
> > But what happens if you do: perf record -o foo --output_dir foo.d?
>
> Should fail, i.e. either you use single-file or directory output, I
> think.
>
Agreed
> - Arnaldo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-04 21:06    [W:0.444 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site