From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB4FC2BD09 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D42420707 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="ipkqHXR+" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726575AbfLFXRI (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:17:08 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-f195.google.com ([209.85.219.195]:38393 "EHLO mail-yb1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726425AbfLFXRI (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:17:08 -0500 Received: by mail-yb1-f195.google.com with SMTP id l129so3662153ybf.5 for ; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:17:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=V7FUl9VETo/oiSsBNFlxfWlZpZRlSZipIrIxdJ1sDhI=; b=ipkqHXR+zGq6JE5Hi1lIOquFzTH3FsBByPaAMbaf0xsFi6hizT54QqC74s+lAY+cXK NUm6KrdRLPiFtcPiEASE3/p0ypm9dueMHR4LKimpys1nkvqvCgR3zTuDhZaA59065Q/4 fMu38iKXoCseAoy+FMTQ2o3kJWXqsvJxVymwIS2gFpqLUfm9pAM1EV4nsY0+cCvzcImq mHBZwy8CKPk23NVqEHGtAIrQ00h9VKmzJGYU7vIhUi6goxwuvJppB3ExNcXxQDq7BUyQ J8zt4k8Tu+XPq/3aqikvyxPz+bf9MYdlx5VR/5PJvvf6YCUSSelr9g5Fjtnv/1lwwD1h sKPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V7FUl9VETo/oiSsBNFlxfWlZpZRlSZipIrIxdJ1sDhI=; b=YyX4kqs6lngMndqL/0INXwu910hkE2dXC2rLEvPYfNAZY5mBoWeZDE7tLrqbkkBIHk UjPCMP6qpPE4OazaMJ2zxI2mUhcvy9Z8vE3lSofcfkuldXsSHIcGHwYVoU0shxamAbas 5qeclpNes4AOx0zww0kFU5gNHiM3GDL3bWkLUMhekZPMJziV1opDGUIX2gPPJfFobMP7 qRTAAh3banEkme7AklREK9Cbohdr23KAFhMceLbnm6/YTIpQI6PvW2v3AlHV3WhGxt4z 1eQWPE2RWO4elmoIr6UbEoTdtskvGcuJaB0mzzPCOZMF8L6yDYm04YLPFuSeMGpiXVrM oZPw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXnZbT4WvxaaFmJgfxxMJ9DpNgsyeurpzGESXLWLAH1kiCjtze/ FjTQd50cJ2e0gkOtb7XikG64/J7ZPIWrTdHfeL2+RQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxkNUB+SKolfofCSfXRfJ3BWe3AGN+7qXc9M8YGJUKNX52Q4RNby6oB6STmNU3cm19XtKlrQka2Lz+5vKAfXdM= X-Received: by 2002:a25:b785:: with SMTP id n5mr3305327ybh.324.1575674225923; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:17:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191114003042.85252-1-irogers@google.com> <20191114104525.GU4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: From: Ian Rogers Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:16:54 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Optimize cgroup context switch To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Andrew Morton , Masahiro Yamada , Kees Cook , Catalin Marinas , Petr Mladek , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Qian Cai , Joe Lawrence , Tetsuo Handa , "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" , Andy Shevchenko , Ard Biesheuvel , "David S. Miller" , Kent Overstreet , Gary Hook , Arnd Bergmann , Kan Liang , LKML , Stephane Eranian , Andi Kleen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:17 AM Ian Rogers wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:45 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:30:32PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > Avoid iterating over all per-CPU events during cgroup changing context > > > switches by organizing events by cgroup. > > > > When last we spoke (Plumbers in Lisbon) you mentioned that this > > optimization was yielding far less than expected. You had graphs showing > > how the use of cgroups impacted event scheduling time and how this patch > > set only reduced that a little. > > > > Any update on all that? There seems to be a conspicuous lack of such > > data here. > > I'm working on giving an update on the numbers but I suspect they are > better than I'd measured ahead of LPC due to a bug in a script. > > Thanks, > Ian Apologies for the delay, I'm sending v5 that addresses review comments. I'm still working on performance numbers. Thanks, Ian