Hi Alexei, On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:23 AM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 9:54 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Jiri, > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 1:31 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:53:11PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > It was reported that accessing perf_event map entry caused pretty high > > > > LLC misses in get_map_perf_counter(). As reading perf_event is allowed > > > > for the local CPU only, I think we can use the target CPU of the event > > > > as hint for the allocation like in perf_event_alloc() so that the event > > > > and the entry can be in the same node at least. > > > > > > looks good, is there any profile to prove the gain? > > > > No, at this point. I'm not sure if it'd help LLC hit ratio but > > I think it should improve the memory latency. > > I have the same concern as Jiri. > Without numbers this is just a code churn. > Does this patch really make a difference? > Without numbers maintainers would have to believe the "just trust me" part. > So.. > pw-bot: cr Ok, then I'll come back with numbers later. Thanks, Namhyung
