On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:35:47AM -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:15:46 -0400 > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I suppose the answer is don't run on a system with that many cpus :) > > > > > > But I wonder if it would be possible to have the threads each handle say 8 cpu > > > files or something. > > > > Actually, I think another solution is to consolidate the pids that are > > to be excluded and sort them. Thus if we have (which is very likely the > > case) > > > > (common_pid!=1000)&&(common_pid!=1001)&&(common_pid!=1002) > > > > That we change that to: > > > > !((common_pid>=1000)||(common_pid<=1002)) > > > > WRITE: /sys/kernel/tracing/events/sched/sched_switch/filter, len 6718, data "(common_pid!=100199)&&(common_pid!=100198)&&(common_pid!=100197)&&(common_pid!=100196)&&(common_pid!=100195)&&(common_pid!=100194)&&(common_pid!=100193)&&(common_pid!=100192)&&(common_pid!=100191) ... 160 of these ... > > > &&(common_pid!=100040)||(next_pid!=100199)&&(next_pid!=100198)&&(next_pid!=100197)&&(next_pid!=100196)&&(next_pid!=100195)&&(next_pid!=100194)&&(next_pid!=100193)&&(next_pid!=100192)... 160 of these... > > Yes this would definitely help. From your output that is shown, we > could convert that to: > > !((common_pid>=100040)||(common_pid<=100199))&&!((next_pid>=100040)||(next_pid<=100199)) > That'll be interesting to code given how the code works now, but does look like it would help. Probably save a lot of instructions when filtering too. Thanks for looking at it. I can just find a smaller machine. Cheers, Phil > > -- Steve --
|