From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751926AbdFORmq (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:42:46 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:61875 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830AbdFORmp (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:42:45 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,344,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="1182988698" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]: perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process, profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi From: Alexey Budankov To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Alexander Shishkin , Andi Kleen , Kan Liang , Dmitri Prokhorov , Valery Cherepennikov , David Carrillo-Cisneros , Stephane Eranian , Mark Rutland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1e962b59-3e39-e0d6-515d-c4fd3502edae@linux.intel.com> <20170529074636.tjftcdtcg6op74i3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <75f031d8-68ec-4cd6-752f-1fbecaa86026@linux.intel.com> <20170529104304.vy47zhf6fdq6bki3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <0e8d266e-ea38-baea-765d-cab98df9b9bc@linux.intel.com> <20170529112311.ht3pg2dd7pjm3m3a@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <04fc9b86-8165-7c64-9f23-eb861d9384c9@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Corp. Message-ID: <14544d26-3198-1d9a-3585-d6a7b09845f4@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:42:39 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <04fc9b86-8165-7c64-9f23-eb861d9384c9@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29.05.2017 14:45, Alexey Budankov wrote: > On 29.05.2017 14:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 01:56:05PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: >>> On 29.05.2017 13:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >>>> Why can't the tree do both? >>>> >>> >>> Well, indeed, the tree provides such capability too. However >>> switching to >>> the full tree iteration in cases where we now go through _groups >>> lists will >>> enlarge the patch, what is probably is not a big deal. Do you think >>> it is >>> worth implementing the switch? >> >> Do it as a series of patches, where patch 1 introduces the tree, patches >> 2 through n convert the list users into tree users, and patch n+1 >> removes the list. > > Well ok, let's do that additionally but please expect delay in delivery > (I am OOO till Jun 14). addressed in v3. > >> >> I think its good to not have duplicate data structures if we can avoid >> it. >> > > yeah, makes sense. > > >