All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/core: Optimize event reschedule for a PMU
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:31:07 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1fc7dc5f-c3fa-4993-b46d-8261a6e4b79d@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240802191123.GC12673@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>



On 2024-08-02 3:11 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 08:50:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 08:43:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 08:38:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 02:30:19PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -2792,7 +2833,14 @@ static int  __perf_install_in_context(void *info)
>>>>>>  	if (reprogram) {
>>>>>>  		ctx_sched_out(ctx, EVENT_TIME);
>>>
>>> Clearly I should read better...
>>>
>>>>>>  		add_event_to_ctx(event, ctx);
>>>>>> -		ctx_resched(cpuctx, task_ctx, get_event_type(event));
>>>>>> +		if (ctx->nr_events == 1) {
>>>>>> +			/* The first event needs to set ctx->is_active. */
>>>>>> +			ctx_resched(cpuctx, task_ctx, NULL, get_event_type(event));
>>>>>> +		} else {
>>>>>> +			ctx_resched(cpuctx, task_ctx, event->pmu_ctx->pmu,
>>>>>> +				    get_event_type(event));
>>>>>> +			ctx_sched_in(ctx, EVENT_TIME);
>>>>>
>>>>> The changelog doesn't mention the time difference much. As my
>>>>> understanding, the time is shared among PMUs in the same ctx.
>>>>> When perf does ctx_resched(), the time is deducted.
>>>>> There is no problem to stop and restart the global time when perf
>>>>> re-schedule all PMUs.
>>>>> But if only one PMU is re-scheduled while others are still running, it
>>>>> may be a problem to stop and restart the global time. Other PMUs will be
>>>>> impacted.
>>>
>>> So yeah, this stops ctx time but not all PMUs.
>>
>> But isn't this already the case? We don't have perf_ctx_disable() here
>> currently. 
>>
>> Bah, this heat is melting my brain.
> 
> I think all it wants is to update time and ensure the added event and
> the resched all use the same time, which could be done differently.
>

Yes. I think that's what the current code tries to do.
But it seems the current code doesn't do it clearly either.

ctx_sched_out(ctx, EVENT_TIME); <-- disable the time
ctx_resched()
    perf_ctx_disable()          <-- disable all PMUs

    perf_event_sched_in()
        ctx_sched_in()          <-- enable the time
    perf_ctx_enable()           <-- enable all PMUs

I think the ctx_sched_out(ctx, EVENT_TIME) should be moved after the
perf_ctx_disable();.
Hope it can be fixed by the different way.

> But I'll have to continue staring at this later.

Sure.

Thanks,
Kan

  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-02 19:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-31  0:06 [PATCH v2] perf/core: Optimize event reschedule for a PMU Namhyung Kim
2024-08-02 17:39 ` Namhyung Kim
2024-08-02 18:30 ` Liang, Kan
2024-08-02 18:38   ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-02 18:43     ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-02 18:50       ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-02 19:11         ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-02 19:31           ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2024-08-02 19:32           ` Namhyung Kim
2024-08-03 10:32           ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-03 17:08             ` Namhyung Kim
2024-08-05  6:39               ` Namhyung Kim
2024-08-05  9:15                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-05  9:05               ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-05  9:20   ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-05 14:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-06  6:19       ` Namhyung Kim
2024-08-06  7:56         ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-06  8:07           ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-08-06 19:29             ` Namhyung Kim
2024-08-06 13:54       ` Liang, Kan

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=1fc7dc5f-c3fa-4993-b46d-8261a6e4b79d@linux.intel.com \
    --to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mizhang@google.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ravi.bangoria@amd.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.