archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
To: Mark Rutland <>
	Alexander Shishkin <>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>, Will Deacon <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix pmu::filter_match for SW-led groups
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:35:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160704180534.GD9048@leverpostej>

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:05:35PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 06:40:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > One of the ways I was looking at getting that done is a virtual runtime
> > scheduler (just like cfs). The tricky point is merging two virtual
> > runtime trees. But I think that should be doable if we sort the trees on
> > lag.
> > 
> > In any case, the relevance to your question is that once we have a tree,
> > we can play games with order; that is, if we first order on PMU-id and
> > only second on lag, we get whole subtree clusters specific for a PMU.
> Hmm... I'm not sure how that helps in this case. Wouldn't we still need
> to walk the sibling list to get the HW PMU-id in the case of a SW group
> leader?

Since there is a hardware even in the group, it must be part of the
hardware pmu list/tree and would thus end up classified (and sorted) by
that (hardware) PMU-id.

> For the heterogeenous case we'd need a different sort order per-cpu
> (well, per microarchitecture), which sounds like we're going to have to
> fully sort the events every time they move between CPUs. :/

Confused, I thought that for the HG case you had multiple events, one
for each PMU. If we classify these events differently we'd simply use a
different subtree depending on which CPU the task lands.

Currently we've munged the two PMUs together, because, well, that's the
only way.

> I also had another though about solving the SW-led group case: if the
> leader had a reference to the group's HW PMU (of which there should only
> be one), we can filter on that alone, and can also use that in
> group_sched_in rather than the ctx->pmu, avoiding the issue that
> ctx->pmu is not the same as the group's HW PMU.
> I'll have a play with that approach in the mean time.

Right, adds one more pointer to the struct event, but that thing is
massive already.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-05  8:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-14 15:10 Mark Rutland
2016-07-02 16:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-04 18:05   ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-05  8:35     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-07-05  9:44       ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-05 12:04         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-05 12:52           ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-07  8:31 ` [tip:perf/core] perf/core: Fix " tip-bot for Mark Rutland

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] perf: fix pmu::filter_match for SW-led groups' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).