Re: [PATCH v8 0/3]: perf: reduce data loss when profiling highly parallel CPU bound workloads

From: Jiri Olsa
Date: Tue Sep 11 2018 - 04:34:23 EST

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:16:45AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
> On 11.09.2018 9:35, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> It may sound too optimistic but glibc API is expected to be backward compatible
> >> and for POSIX AIO API part too. Internal implementation also tends to evolve to
> >> better option overtime, more probably basing on modern kernel capabilities
> >> mentioned here:
> >
> > I'm not talking about compatibility, and I'm not just talking about glibc, perf works under
> > other libcs as well - and let me phrase it in another way: basic event handling, threading,
> > scheduling internals should be a *core competency* of a tracing/profiling tool.
> Well, the requirement of independence from some specific libc implementation
> as well as *core competency* design approach clarify a lot. Thanks!
> >
> > I.e. we might end up using the exact same per event fd thread pool design that glibc uses
> > currently. Or not. Having that internal and open coded to perf, like Jiri has started
> > implementing it, allows people to experiment with it.
> My point here is that following some standardized programming models and APIs
> (like POSIX) in the tool code, even if the tool itself provides internal open
> coded implementation for the APIs, would simplify experimenting with the tool
> as well as lower barriers for new comers. Perf project could benefit from that.
> >
> > This isn't some GUI toolkit, this is at the essence of perf, and we are not very good on large
> > systems right now, and I think the design should be open-coded threading, not relying on an
> > (perf-)external AIO library to get it right.
> >
> > The glibc thread pool implementation of POSIX AIO is basically a fall-back
> > implementation, for the case where there's no native KAIO interface to rely on.
> >
> >> Well, explicit threading in the tool for AIO, in the simplest case, means
> >> incorporating some POSIX API implementation into the tool, avoiding
> >> code reuse in the first place. That tends to be error prone and costly.
> >
> > It's a core competency, we better do it right and not outsource it.
> Yep, makes sense.

on the other hand, we are already trying to tie this up under perf_mmap
object, which is what the threaded patchset operates on.. so I'm quite
confident that with little effort we could make those 2 things live next
to each other and let the user to decide which one to take and compare

possibilities would be like: (not sure yet the last one makes sense, but still..)

# perf record --threads=... ...
# perf record --aio ...
# perf record --threads=... --aio ...

how about that?

I just rebased the thread patchset, will make some tests (it's been few months,
so it needs some kicking/checking) and post it out hopefuly this week