From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nleeder@codeaurora.org (Leeder, Neil) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:11:36 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v9] perf: add qcom l2 cache perf events driver In-Reply-To: <20170206154814.GA4190@leverpostej> References: <1486161081-28409-1-git-send-email-nleeder@codeaurora.org> <20170206154814.GA4190@leverpostej> Message-ID: <8d61d7fb-71d0-190e-26e3-a72e98cfb10d@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Mark, Thanks for those comments - I'll add the fixes. On 2/6/2017 10:48 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > I'm still concerned by this use of the filter_match callback, because it > depends on the set of other active events, and can change as other > events are scheduled in and out. > > When we schedule in two conflicting events A and B in order, B will fail > its filter match. When we scheduled out A and B in order, B will succeed > its filter match. > > The perf core does not expect this inconsistency, and this appears to > break the timing update logic in event_sched_out(), when unconditionally > called from ctx_sched_out() as part of perf_rotate_context(). > > I would feel much happier if we dropped l2_cache_filter_match(), at > least for the timebeing, and handled this as we do for other cases of > intra-pmu resource contention. > > We can then consider the filter_match addition on its own at a later > point. So could this be detected in get_event_idx, the same way we handle counter resource contention? That would eliminate filter_match, and it's the same way its done in armv7 (arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c:krait_pmu_get_event_idx()). It's less obvious to the user, but seeing 2 events being rotated so they each have ~50% coverage should provide a hint that the user did something wrong, so I think that would work. Thanks, Neil -- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.