On 9/26/2018 2:10 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
<saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
<saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+
+ trace_seq_init(&iter->seq);
+ iter->ent = fbuffer->entry;
+ event_call->event.funcs->trace(iter, 0, event);
+ trace_seq_putc(&iter->seq, 0);
Would it be possible to store the binary trace record in the pstore
buffer instead of outputting text? I suspect that will both be faster
and less space.
I will try this and come back.
Hi Joel,
I removed trace_seq_putc and there is some improvement seen: 203 MB/s
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null status=progress
12207371264 bytes (12 GB, 11 GiB) copied, 60 s, 203 MB/s^C
24171926+0 records in
24171926+0 records out
12376026112 bytes (12 GB, 12 GiB) copied, 60.8282 s, 203 MB/s
This seems good when compared to 190 MB/s seen previously.
If this is Ok, then I will spin v2 with changes suggested.
Sorry for slow reply, yes that sounds good and a worthwhile perf improvement.
Well so I think you should still not use spinlock to synchronize and
split the buffer. You could expand pstore_record to have a ts field or
introduce a new API like ->write_percpu instead of write, or
something. But I strongly feel you should lock. For ftrace function
Aargh, I meant you should *not* lock :-)
OK I can try this and will measure some perf difference.
BTW I guess you missed my previous comment about not able to combine
logs based on timestamp? Anyways I think if I add some extra ts field,
then should be able to do it.
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
