Re: [PATCH] perf_events: fix time tracking in samples

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 21:03 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:

> >> Ok, I missed that. But I don't understand why you need the lock to
> >> udpate the time. The lower-level clock is lockless if I recall. Can't you
> >> use an atomic ops in update_context_time()?
> >
> > atomic ops would slow down those code paths, also, I don't think you can
> > fully get the ordering between ->tstamp_$foo and ->total_time_$foo just
> > right.
> >
> 
> I don't get that. Could you give an example?

Take update_context_time(), it has:

 now = perf_clock();
 ctx->time += now - ctx->timestamp;
 ctx->timestamp = now;

If you interleave two of those you get:

 ctx->timestamp = T0;


 now = perf_clock(); /* T1 */
 ctx->time += now - ctx->timestamp;
					now = perf_clock(); /* T2 */
					ctx->time += now - ctx->timestamp;
					ctx->timestamp = now;
 ctx->timestamp = now;


So at this point you would expect timestamp = T2 and time += T2-T0.

Except that: time += T1 - T0 + T2 - T0 != T2 - T0 and
             timestamp = T1

You can of course write it as something like x86_perf_event_update(),
but then there's trying to keep total_time_running and
total_time_enabled in sync.


> > Not sure, but barring 64bit atomics for all these, 32bit archs and NMI
> > are going to be 'interesting'
> >
> 
> Every sample needs to be correct, otherwise you run the risk of introducing
> bias.
> 
> I think if the tradeoffs is correctness vs. speed, I'd choose correctness.

Well, yes, but it sucks, esp. since its only relevant for
PERF_SAMPLE_READ.