From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, acme@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
andi@firstfloor.org, eranian@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, davidcc@google.com,
alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
kan.liang@intel.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] perf/x86/intel: Rework the large PEBS setup code
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 00:00:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160708220047.GK30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160708163616.GA2392@krava>
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 06:36:16PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:31:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > /*
> > - * When the event is constrained enough we can use a larger
> > - * threshold and run the event with less frequent PMI.
> > + * Use auto-reload if possible to save a MSR write in the PMI.
> > + * This must be done in pmu::start(), because PERF_EVENT_IOC_PERIOD.
> > */
> > - if (hwc->flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_FREERUNNING) {
> > - threshold = ds->pebs_absolute_maximum -
> > - x86_pmu.max_pebs_events * x86_pmu.pebs_record_size;
> > -
> > - if (first_pebs)
> > - perf_sched_cb_inc(event->ctx->pmu);
> > - } else {
> > - threshold = ds->pebs_buffer_base + x86_pmu.pebs_record_size;
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * If not all events can use larger buffer,
> > - * roll back to threshold = 1
> > - */
> > - if (!first_pebs &&
> > - (ds->pebs_interrupt_threshold > threshold))
> > - perf_sched_cb_dec(event->ctx->pmu);
> > - }
>
> hum, the original code switched back the perf_sched_cb,
> in case !feerunning event was detected.. I dont see it
> in the new code.. just the threshold update
> +static inline bool pebs_needs_sched_cb(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
> {
> + return cpuc->n_pebs && (cpuc->n_pebs == cpuc->n_large_pebs);
> +}
> +static void intel_pmu_pebs_add(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> + struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> + bool needs_cb = pebs_needs_sched_cb(cpuc);
> +
> + cpuc->n_pebs++;
> + if (hwc->flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_FREERUNNING)
> + cpuc->n_large_pebs++;
> +
> + if (!needs_cb && pebs_needs_sched_cb(cpuc))
> + perf_sched_cb_inc(event->ctx->pmu);
Ah, you're saying this,
> + pebs_update_threshold(cpuc);
> }
> +static void intel_pmu_pebs_del(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> + struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> + bool needs_cb = pebs_needs_sched_cb(cpuc);
> +
> + cpuc->n_pebs--;
> + if (hwc->flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_FREERUNNING)
> + cpuc->n_large_pebs--;
> +
> + if (needs_cb && !pebs_needs_sched_cb(cpuc))
> + perf_sched_cb_dec(event->ctx->pmu);
and this, should also have something like
if (!needs_cb && pebs_needs_sched_cb(cpuc))
perf_sched_cb_inc(event->ctx->pmu)
Because the event we just removed was the one inhibiting FREERUNNING and
we can now let it rip again.
Yes, you're right. Let me try and see if I can make that better.
Thanks!
> +
> + if (cpuc->n_pebs)
> + pebs_update_threshold(cpuc);
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-08 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-08 13:30 [RFC][PATCH 0/7] perf: Branch stack annotation and fixes Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 13:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] perf/x86/intel: Rework the large PEBS setup code Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 16:36 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-07-08 22:00 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-07-08 22:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-10 9:08 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-07-08 13:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] perf,x86: Ensure perf_sched_cb_{inc,dec}() is only called from pmu::{add,del}() Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 13:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7] perf/x86/intel: DCE intel_pmu_lbr_del() Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 13:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7] perf/x86/intel: Remove redundant test from intel_pmu_lbr_add() Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 13:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] perf/x86/intel: Clean up LBR state tracking Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 13:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7] perf: Optimize perF_pmu_sched_task() Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 13:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] perf/annotate: Add branch stack / basic block information Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 14:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-07-08 16:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-08 16:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-08 16:18 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2016-09-08 16:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-08 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-08 17:07 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2016-09-08 16:43 ` Stephane Eranian
2016-09-08 16:59 ` Andi Kleen
2016-09-08 17:11 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2016-09-09 2:40 ` Jin, Yao
2016-09-08 18:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160708220047.GK30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=davidcc@google.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome