From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14827C282C4 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D236F2081B for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727070AbfBDT4f (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:56:35 -0500 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:18182 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726813AbfBDT4e (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:56:34 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Feb 2019 11:56:33 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,560,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="316272336" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2019 11:56:32 -0800 Received: from [10.252.27.94] (abudanko-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com [10.252.27.94]) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B375800E0; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:56:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 00/14] perf record: Add support to store data in directory To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Stephane Eranian , Jiri Olsa Cc: Jiri Olsa , lkml , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Alexander Shishkin , Peter Zijlstra , Adrian Hunter , Andi Kleen References: <20190203153018.9650-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <8d8b3f0d-cea8-2daf-249f-29f485c49a46@linux.intel.com> <20190204103643.GA18141@krava> <6bf24b7d-2bd3-8091-cf49-363c91e4e864@linux.intel.com> <20190204114144.GC18141@krava> <20190204192721.GI5593@kernel.org> From: Alexey Budankov Organization: Intel Corp. Message-ID: <7d5fd554-0d6e-6b25-b4fd-b13b539c87f6@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 22:56:27 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190204192721.GI5593@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04.02.2019 22:27, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 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 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. I also expect it this way. Alexey > > - Arnaldo >