From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: acme@kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
eranian@google.com, alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com,
ak@linux.intel.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, megha.dey@intel.com,
frederic@kernel.org, maddy@linux.ibm.com, irogers@google.com,
kim.phillips@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
santosh.shukla@amd.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] perf: Rewrite core context handling
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:13:09 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c6a53dc-99f2-cb82-5aee-05d9b5061b42@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220113134743.1292-1-ravi.bangoria@amd.com>
On 13-Jan-22 7:17 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> This is the 2nd version of RFC originally posted by Peter[1].
>
> There have been various issues and limitations with the way perf uses
> (task) contexts to track events. Most notable is the single hardware
> PMU task context, which has resulted in a number of yucky things (both
> proposed and merged).
>
> Notably:
> - HW breakpoint PMU
> - ARM big.little PMU / Intel ADL PMU
> - Intel Branch Monitoring PMU
> - AMD IBS
>
> Current design:
> ---------------
> Currently we have a per task and per cpu perf_event_contexts:
>
> task_struct::perf_events_ctxp[] <-> perf_event_context <-> perf_cpu_context
> ^ | ^ |
> `---------------------------------' | `--> pmu
> v ^
> perf_event ------'
>
> Each task has an array of pointers to a perf_event_context. Each
> perf_event_context has a direct relation to a PMU and a group of
> events for that PMU. The task related perf_event_context's have a
> pointer back to that task.
>
> Each PMU has a per-cpu pointer to a per-cpu perf_cpu_context, which
> includes a perf_event_context, which again has a direct relation to
> that PMU, and a group of events for that PMU.
>
> The perf_cpu_context also tracks which task context is currently
> associated with that CPU and includes a few other things like the
> hrtimer for rotation etc.
>
> Each perf_event is then associated with its PMU and one
> perf_event_context.
>
> Proposed design:
> ----------------
> New design proposed by this patch reduce to a single task context and
> a single CPU context but adds some intermediate data-structures:
>
> task_struct::perf_event_ctxp -> perf_event_context <- perf_cpu_context
> ^ | ^ ^
> `---------------------------------' | |
> | | perf_cpu_pmu_context
> | `----. ^
> | | |
> | v v
> | ,--> perf_event_pmu_context
> | | ^
> | | |
> v v v
> perf_event ---> pmu
>
> With new design, perf_event_context will hold all pmu events in the
> respective(pinned/flexible) rbtrees. This can be achieved by adding
> pmu to rbtree key:
>
> {cpu, pmu, cgroup_id, group_index}
>
> Each perf_event_context carry a list of perf_event_pmu_context which
> is used to hold per-pmu-per-context state. For ex, it keeps track of
> currently active events for that pmu, a pmu specific task_ctx_data,
> a flag to tell whether rotation is required or not etc.
>
> Similarly perf_cpu_pmu_context is used to hold per-pmu-per-cpu state
> like hrtimer details to drive the event rotation, a pointer to
> perf_event_pmu_context of currently running task and some other
> ancillary information.
>
> Each perf_event is associated to it's pmu, perf_event_context and
> perf_event_pmu_context.
>
> Original RFC -> RFC v2:
> -----------------------
> In addition to porting the patch to latest (v5.16-rc6) kernel, here
> are some of the major changes between two revisions:
>
> - There were quite a bit of fundamental changes since original patch.
> Most notably a rbtree key has changed from {cpu,group_index} to
> {cpu,cgroup_id,group_index}. Adding a pmu key in between as proposed
> in original patch is not straight forward as it will break cgroup
> specific optimization. Hence we need to iterate over all pmu_ctx
> for a given ctx and call visit_groups_merge() one by one.
> - Enabled cgroup support (CGROUP_PERF).
> - Some changes wrt multiplexing events as with new design the rotation
> happens at cgroup subtree unlike at pmu subtree in original patch.
>
> Because of additional complexity above changes bring in, I thought to
> get initial review about the overall approach before starting to make it
> upstream ready. Hence this patch just provides an idea of the direction
> we will head toward. Many loose ends in the patch rightnow. Like, I've
> not paid much attention to synchronization related aspects. Similarly,
> some of the issues marked in original patch (XXX) haven't been fixed.
>
> A simple perf stat/record/top survives with the patch but machine
> crashes with first run of perf test (stale cpc->task_epc causing the
> crash). Lockdep is also screaming a lot :)
Hi Peter, can you please review this.
Thanks,
Ravi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-31 4:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-13 13:47 Ravi Bangoria
2022-01-17 7:18 ` [perf] f7cf7134e4: WARNING:at_kernel/events/core.c:#__pmu_ctx_sched_out kernel test robot
2022-01-31 4:43 ` Ravi Bangoria [this message]
2022-06-13 14:35 ` [RFC v2] perf: Rewrite core context handling Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-13 14:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-13 14:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-02 6:11 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-22 15:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-22 15:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-22 16:37 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-23 4:20 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-29 3:54 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-23 6:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-29 4:00 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-29 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-22 16:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-23 4:57 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-06-13 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-22 14:38 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-06-13 14:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-02 6:16 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-23 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-24 5:07 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-24 7:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-24 7:53 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-06-13 14:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-02 6:10 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-22 16:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-23 4:46 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-06-17 13:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-24 10:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-27 4:18 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-02 6:06 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-24 12:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-24 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-25 5:39 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-25 9:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-25 11:03 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-02 6:13 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-23 7:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-02 6:17 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-23 7:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-08-23 15:14 ` Ravi Bangoria
2022-08-22 14:40 ` Ravi Bangoria
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=5c6a53dc-99f2-cb82-5aee-05d9b5061b42@amd.com \
--to=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=kim.phillips@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=megha.dey@intel.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=santosh.shukla@amd.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
/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®