From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
jolsa@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf: Fix the ctx->pmu for a hybrid system
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:10:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3d4b9377-30b0-a945-7b11-b412dcc4c51a@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YMsy7BuGT8nBTspT@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 6/17/2021 7:33 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:23:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:55:30AM -0700, kan.liang@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>
>>> To fix the issue, the generic perf codes have to understand the
>>> supported CPU mask of a specific hybrid PMU. So it can update the
>>> ctx->pmu accordingly, when a task is scheduled on a CPU which has
>>> a different type of PMU from the previous CPU. The supported_cpus
>>> has to be moved to the struct pmu.
>>
>> Urghh.. I so hate this :-/
>>
>> I *did* point you to:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181010104559.GO5728@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
>>
>> when you started this whole hybrid crud
Yes, to work around the hybrid, I updated the PMU for the CPU context
accordingly, but not the task context. :( This issue is found in a
stress test that was not ready at that time. Sorry for that.
>>, and I think that's still the
>> correct thing to do.
>> >> Still, let me consider if there's a workable short-term cludge I hate
>> less.
>
> How's this? We already have x86_pmu_update_cpu_context() setting the
> 'correct' pmu in the cpuctx, so we can simply fold that back into the
> task context.
>
> For normal use this is a no-op.
>
> Now I need to go audit all ctx->pmu usage :-(
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index db4604c4c502..6a496c29ef00 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -3822,9 +3822,16 @@ static void perf_event_context_sched_in(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> struct task_struct *task)
> {
> struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
> - struct pmu *pmu = ctx->pmu;
> + struct pmu *pmu;
>
> cpuctx = __get_cpu_context(ctx);
> +
> + /*
> + * HACK; for HETEROGENOUS the task context might have switched to a
> + * different PMU, don't bother gating this.
> + */
> + pmu = ctx->pmu = cpuctx->ctx.pmu;
> +
I think all the perf_sw_context PMUs share the same pmu_cpu_context. so
the cpuctx->ctx.pmu should be always the first registered
perf_sw_context PMU which is perf_swevent. The ctx->pmu could be another
software PMU.
In theory, the perf_sw_context PMUs should have a similar issue. If the
events are from different perf_sw_context PMUs, we should
perf_pmu_disable() all of the PMUs before schedule them, but the
ctx->pmu only tracks the first one.
I don't have a good way to fix the perf_sw_context PMUs. I think we have
to go through the event list and find all PMUs. But I don't think it's
worth doing.
Maybe we should only apply the change for the hybrid PMUs, and leave
other PMUs as is.
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 6fee4a7..df9cce6 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -3821,9 +3821,19 @@ static void perf_event_context_sched_in(struct
perf_event_context *ctx,
struct task_struct *task)
{
struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
- struct pmu *pmu = ctx->pmu;
+ struct pmu *pmu;
cpuctx = __get_cpu_context(ctx);
+
+ if (ctx->pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_HETEROGENEOUS_CPUS) {
+ /*
+ * HACK; for HETEROGENOUS the task context might have switched to a
+ * different PMU, don't bother gating this.
+ */
+ pmu = ctx->pmu = cpuctx->ctx.pmu;
+ } else
+ pmu = ctx->pmu;
+
if (cpuctx->task_ctx == ctx) {
if (cpuctx->sched_cb_usage)
__perf_pmu_sched_task(cpuctx, true);
Thanks,
Kan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-17 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-16 18:55 kan.liang
2021-06-16 18:55 ` [PATCH 1/4] perf: Update " kan.liang
2021-06-16 18:55 ` [PATCH 2/4] perf/x86: Fix the x86_pmu_start WARNING on " kan.liang
2021-06-16 18:55 ` [PATCH 3/4] perf: Check the supported CPU of an event kan.liang
2021-06-16 18:55 ` [PATCH 4/4] perf/x86: Remove filter_match callback kan.liang
2021-06-17 10:23 ` [PATCH 0/4] perf: Fix the ctx->pmu for a hybrid system Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-17 11:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-17 14:10 ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2021-06-17 19:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-18 13:54 ` Liang, Kan
2021-06-24 7:09 ` [tip: perf/core] perf: Fix task context PMU for Hetero tip-bot2 for 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=3d4b9377-30b0-a945-7b11-b412dcc4c51a@linux.intel.com \
--to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®