From: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
To: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, acme@kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jolsa@redhat.com,
namhyung@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/lbr: Optimize context switches for LBR
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:57:38 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0ffedf2e-0557-1351-045c-2758b207f019@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c9f2436a-f996-026d-5fee-557e6d91c613@linux.intel.com>
Hello Kan and Andi,
On 14.09.2018 17:57, linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org wrote:
>
>
> On 9/14/2018 10:27 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 08:39:36AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/14/2018 5:22 AM, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andi,
>>>>
>>>> On 14.09.2018 11:54, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>>>>> In principle the LBRs need to be flushed between threads. So does
>>>>>>> current code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, ideally, LBRs stack would be preserved and restored when
>>>>>> switching between execution stacks. That would allow implementing
>>>>>> per-thread statistical call graph view in Perf tools, fully based
>>>>>> on HW capabilities. It could be advantageous for some cases, in
>>>>>> comparison with traditional dwarf based call graph.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is already supported when you use LBR call stack mode
>>>>> (perf record --call-graph lbr)
>>>>
>>>> Which kernel versions does it make sense to try?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The optimization for LBR call stack has been merged into 4.19.
>>> commit id: 8b077e4a69bef5c4121426e99497975860191e53
>>> perf/x86/intel/lbr: Optimize context switches for the LBR call stack
>>
>> I think he mean support for LBR call stack in general. This has been there
>> for a long time (since Haswell) Any reasonable kernel version should
>> support it.
>>
>
> Oh I see. Yes, the feature of LBR call stack was added long time ago.
> But I still recommend 4.19. Because it includes a recent bug fix for LBR call stack.
>
> commit id: 0592e57b24e7e05ec1f4c50b9666c013abff7017
> perf/x86/intel/lbr: Fix incomplete LBR call stack
Thanks for your support.
Best regards,
Alexey
>
> Thanks,
> Kan
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-17 7:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-13 20:08 [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/lbr: Optimize context switches for LBR kan.liang
2018-09-14 6:47 ` Alexey Budankov
2018-09-14 8:54 ` Andi Kleen
2018-09-14 9:22 ` Alexey Budankov
2018-09-14 12:39 ` Liang, Kan
2018-09-14 14:27 ` Andi Kleen
2018-09-14 14:57 ` Liang, Kan
2018-09-17 7:57 ` Alexey Budankov [this message]
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=0ffedf2e-0557-1351-045c-2758b207f019@linux.intel.com \
--to=alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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