[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: pref record question
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 08:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 19:04 +0200, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> >
> > > i am trying to do some profiling with perf ( while
> > > thread-level profiling works fine, i haven't been able to record
> > > profiling data of a whole process (i.e. main thread + child
> > > threads). from my understanding, this should be enabled by running
> > > 'perf record -i' on the main thread. this does only collect the data
> > > from the main thread, though.
> > >
> > > is this an issue with perf or with my understanding of perf?
> >
> > -i will only inherit the counters on new fork()/clone() calls, so an
> > existing process/task tree will not automagically get the counters.
> Looks like something very much worth fixing.

Well, maybe.

There's two ways to go about this, either iterate the tasks in userspace
and attach a counter to each one (repeat until there's no new ones

Or add a new flag in perf_event_attr to iterate the tasks on attach in
an atomic manner.

We cannot simply extend the current attach behaviour as that would make
it impossible to attach to a single thread in a thread group.

Also, if you extend the interface, it would make sense to allow
automatically attaching to a process group, not only a thread group,

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-20 11:23    [W:0.051 / U:10.540 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site