Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf mmap: Fix perf backward recording

[Jiri Olsa]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 01:25:08PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> Hi Namhyung,
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 04:22:53PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > > > On 2017/11/1 21:57, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > > > >> On 2017/11/1 20:00, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > >>> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:32:50PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> > > > > There are only four test cases which set overwrite,
> > > > > sw-clock,task-exit, mmap-basic, backward-ring-buffer.
> > > > > Only backward-ring-buffer is 'backward overwrite'.
> > > > > The rest three are all 'forward overwrite'. We just need to set
> > > > > write_backward to convert them to 'backward overwrite'.
> > > > > I think it's not hard to clean up.
> > > >
> > > > If we add a new rule that overwrite ring buffers are always backward
> > > > then it is not hard to cleanup. However, the support of forward
> > > > overwrite ring buffer has a long history and the code is not written
> > > > by me. I'd like to check if there is some reason to keep support this
> > configuration?
> > > >
> > >
> > > As my observation, currently, there are no perf tools which support
> > > 'forward overwrite'.
> > > There are only three test cases (sw-clock, task-exit, mmap-basic)
> > > which is set to 'forward overwrite'. I donât see any reason it cannot
> > > be changed to 'backward overwrite'
> > >
> > > Arnaldo? Jirka? Kim?
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > 
> > I think sw-clock, task-exit and mmap-basic test cases can be changed to use
> > the forward non-overwrite mode.

agreed, we can change them to forward non-overwrite mode

> > The forward overwrite might be used by externel applications accessing the
> > ring buffer directly but not needed for perf tools IMHO.  
> 
> The proposal is only for perf tool, not kernel. So external applications can still
> use forward overwrite to access the ring buffer.
> 
> > Let's keep the code simpler as much as possible.
> 
> Agree.
> Now, there are too many options to access the ring buffer. Not all of them are
> supported.
> I think we should only keep the crucial options (overwrite/non-overwrite), clearly
> define them in the document and cleanup the code.

as you said earlier only 2 modes make sense, so I think perf record should have:

  - forward non-overwrite mode by default
  - backward overwrite mode when '--overwrite' option is set

and make it clear in the docs, maybe in special perf-record man page section

so far I still like the '--overwrite' option more than --flight-recorder' ;-)
also it's been out there for some time now

jirka