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 S1751153AbdE2LpI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 29 May 2017 07:45:08 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:35568 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751034AbdE2LpF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 29 May 2017 07:45:05 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,414,1491289200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="92555949"
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]: perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process,
 profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>,
        Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@intel.com>,
        Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@intel.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1e962b59-3e39-e0d6-515d-c4fd3502edae@linux.intel.com>
 <b410f376-69ed-c681-8413-c4186bc74aed@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>
From: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Corp.
Message-ID: <04fc9b86-8165-7c64-9f23-eb861d9384c9@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 14:45:00 +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: <20170529112311.ht3pg2dd7pjm3m3a@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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).

> 
> I think its good to not have duplicate data structures if we can avoid
> it.
> 

yeah, makes sense.