archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <>
To: Peter Zijlstra <>
	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 10:44:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160705094447.GA20478@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:35:26AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

My bad; I assumed that for both PMUs we'd start at the root, and thus
would need to re-sort in order to get the current CPU's PMU ordered
first, much like currently with rotation.

I guess I'm having difficulty figuring out the structure of that tree.
If we can easily/cheaply find the relevant sub-tree then the above isn't
an issue.

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

Yeah. Splitting them by any means would be great. In the past I'd looked
at changing task_struct::perf_event_ctxp into something that could
handle an arbitrary number of contexts, such that we could avoid
sharing, but ran away after considering the locking/rcu implications.


  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-05  9:45 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
2016-07-05  9:44       ` Mark Rutland [this message]
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 \
    --in-reply-to=20160705094447.GA20478@leverpostej \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --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).