Re: [PATCHv3 00/19] perf tools: Factor ordered samples queue

[Jiri Olsa]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:19:58AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:36:54PM -0600, David Ahern escreveu:
> > On 7/21/14, 12:23 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > >On 21/07/2014 7:31 p.m., Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >>Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>>[jolsa@ibm-x3650m4-01 perf]$ sudo ./perf report --stdio
> > >>>Timestamp below last timeslice flush
> > >>>0x2276f58 [0x68]: failed to process type: 9
> > >>
> > >>FWIW we're seeing this frequently too.
> > >
> > >Jiri's example didn't work for me.  Do you have one?
> > 
> > $ perf sched record  -m 8192 -- perf bench sched all
> > # Running sched/messaging benchmark...
> > # 20 sender and receiver processes per group
> > # 10 groups == 400 processes run
> > 
> >      Total time: 0.087 [sec]
> > 
> > # Running sched/pipe benchmark...
> > # Executed 1000000 pipe operations between two processes
> > 
> >      Total time: 12.043 [sec]
> > 
> >       12.043779 usecs/op
> >           83030 ops/sec
> > 
> > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 289.549 MB perf.data (~12650569 samples) ]
> > 0x54b4828 [0]: failed to process type: 0
> > 
> > No overload condition, no dropped chunks message - yet can't process events.
> 
> Appling just the patches 1 and 17 from this series I managed to:

ok with me..

I plan to spin new version with better debug messages and without (Adrian):
  perf tools: Limit the ordered events queue by default to 100MB

Anyway, I think the rest without (and the one above):
  perf tools: Add debug prints for ordered events queue

should be good to go..

Namhyung pointed out performance implications for patch 17:
  perf tools: Always force PERF_RECORD_FINISHED_ROUND event

which you seem to test.. but I dont see comparison dow there.. ?

thanks,
jirka

> 
> [root@zoo ~]# cat /proc/loadavg 
> 52.13 13.06 5.04 132/977 29522
> [root@zoo ~]# perf sched record  -m 4096 -- perf bench sched all
> # Running sched/messaging benchmark...
> # 20 sender and receiver processes per group
> # 10 groups == 400 processes run
> 
>      Total time: 0.692 [sec]
> 
> # Running sched/pipe benchmark...
> # Executed 1000000 pipe operations between two processes
> 
>      Total time: 13.007 [sec]
> 
>       13.007582 usecs/op
>           76878 ops/sec
> 
> [ perf record: Woken up 105 times to write data ]
> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 909.513 MB perf.data (~39737216 samples) ]
> [root@zoo ~]# cat /proc/loadavg 
> 80.30 22.82 8.49 132/968 31755
> [root@zoo ~]# perf script | wc -l
> 8308492
> [root@zoo ~]# perf cript | head -10
>  perf 9897 [01] 1.29678: sched:sched_stat_runtime: comm=perf pid=29897 runtime=916836 [ns] vruntime=1322281938410 [ns]
>  perf 9897 [01] 1.29683: sched:sched_wakeup: comm=perf pid=29919 prio=120 success=1 target_cpu=001
>  perf 9897 [01] 1.29688: sched:sched_switch: prev_comm=perf prev_pid=29897 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=perf next_pid=29919 next_prio=120
>  perf 9919 [01] 1.29748: sched:sched_stat_runtime: comm=perf pid=29919 runtime=70430 [ns] vruntime=1322273008840 [ns]
>   cc1 7110 [03] 1.29748: sched:sched_stat_runtime: comm=cc1 pid=27110 runtime=992012 [ns] vruntime=702438664528 [ns]
>   cc1 9278 [00] 1.29748: sched:sched_stat_runtime: comm=cc1 pid=29278 runtime=979081 [ns] vruntime=583946650623 [ns]
>   cc1 7781 [02] 1.29749: sched:sched_stat_runtime: comm=cc1 pid=27781 runtime=989627 [ns] vruntime=714050072391 [ns]
>   cc1 9278 [00] 1.29756: sched:sched_switch: prev_comm=cc1 prev_pid=29278 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=cc1 next_pid=29128 next_prio=120
>   cc1 7110 [03] 1.29757: sched:sched_switch: prev_comm=cc1 prev_pid=27110 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=cc1 next_pid=29586 next_prio=120
>  perf 9919 [01] 1.29914: sched:sched_wakeup: comm=migration/1 pid=12 prio=0 success=1 target_cpu=001
> [root@zoo ~]#
> 
> While doing a make -j128 allmodconfig on a 4way machine.
> 
> David, can I have your Acked-by for just those two while the rest is debated?
> 
> Adrian, can I have yours as well?
> 
> - Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/