From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752192AbeCCRsP (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:48:15 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:43274 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752091AbeCCRsO (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:48:14 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 18:48:08 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Song Liu Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "jolsa@redhat.com" , Kernel Team Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: a different approach to perf_rotate_context() Message-ID: <20180303174808.GJ25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180301195321.2608515-1-songliubraving@fb.com> <20180303152631.GF25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 04:43:16PM +0000, Song Liu wrote: > > In any case, there's a ton of conflict against the patches here: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/log/?h=perf/testing > > > > And with those the idea was to move to a virtual time based scheduler > > (basically schedule those flexible events that have the biggest lag -- > > that also solves 1). > > Thanks for these information. I will study this approach. Maybe that is > our path to PMU sharing. So I'm really not convinced on that whole PMU sharing. > What's is the status of this work? Would it > land in 4.17? These patches might make 4.17, they got held up because of the whole meltdown/spectre crap and I need to get back to them.