From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753396AbdATUbQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:31:16 -0500
Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com ([209.85.213.53]:36842 "EHLO
        mail-vk0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753262AbdATUak (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:30:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170120092033.GK6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170118192454.58008-1-davidcc@google.com> <20170118192454.58008-3-davidcc@google.com>
 <20170120092033.GK6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:30:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CALcN6mitifD4y=1E=TdLZ5ByaNcXds0XEK2=erA7mLFeZBMyBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf/core: Remove perf_cpu_context::unique_pmu
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vince@deater.net>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:24:54AM -0800, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
>> cpuctx->unique_pmu was originally introduced as a way to identify cpuctxs
>> with shared pmus in order to avoid visiting the same cpuctx more than once
>> in a for_each_pmu loop.
>>
>> cpuctx->unique_pmu == cpuctx->pmu in non-software task contexts since they
>> have only one pmu per cpuctx. Since perf_pmu_sched_task is only called in
>> hw contexts, this patch replaces cpuctx->unique_pmu by cpuctx->pmu in it.
>>
>> The change above, together with the previous patch in this series, removed
>> the remaining uses of cpuctx->unique_pmu, so we remove it altogether.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>
>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>
>
>> @@ -8572,37 +8572,10 @@ static struct perf_cpu_context __percpu *find_pmu_context(int ctxn)
>>       return NULL;
>>  }
>>
>> -static void update_pmu_context(struct pmu *pmu, struct pmu *old_pmu)
>> -{
>> -     int cpu;
>> -
>> -     for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> -             struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
>> -
>> -             cpuctx = per_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context, cpu);
>> -
>> -             if (cpuctx->unique_pmu == old_pmu)
>> -                     cpuctx->unique_pmu = pmu;
>> -     }
>> -}
>> -
>>  static void free_pmu_context(struct pmu *pmu)
>>  {
>> -     struct pmu *i;
>> -
>>       mutex_lock(&pmus_lock);
>> -     /*
>> -      * Like a real lame refcount.
>> -      */
>> -     list_for_each_entry(i, &pmus, entry) {
>> -             if (i->pmu_cpu_context == pmu->pmu_cpu_context) {
>> -                     update_pmu_context(i, pmu);
>> -                     goto out;
>> -             }
>> -     }
>> -
>>       free_percpu(pmu->pmu_cpu_context);
>> -out:
>>       mutex_unlock(&pmus_lock);
>>  }
>
> This very much relies on us never calling perf_pmu_unregister() on the
> software PMUs afaict. A condition not mention in the Changelog.
>
What's a good way to solve this? Update the Changelog or add code to
update ctx->pmu?

This issue would go away cleanly if we were to remove the context
sharing across pmu's. Would you support work in that direction?

Thanks,
David