From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932214Ab1IAM5Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 08:57:16 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:40516 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932107Ab1IAM5N convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 08:57:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf, x86: Fix event scheduler for constraints with overlapping counters From: Peter Zijlstra To: Robert Richter Cc: Ingo Molnar , Stephane Eranian , LKML Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:56:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20110520031855.GA17196@erda.amd.com> References: <1302913676-14352-1-git-send-email-robert.richter@amd.com> <1302913676-14352-5-git-send-email-robert.richter@amd.com> <20110419102600.GU31407@erda.amd.com> <1305753398.2466.7180.camel@twins> <20110518212054.GC28476@elte.hu> <1305754613.2466.7190.camel@twins> <20110519180650.GC6139@elte.hu> <20110520031855.GA17196@erda.amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.2- Message-ID: <1314881807.11566.23.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 05:18 +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > On 19.05.11 14:06:50, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 23:20 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > if (c->weight != w) > > > > > > continue; > > > > > > > > > > > > - for_each_set_bit(j, c->idxmsk, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) { > > > > > > - if (!test_bit(j, used_mask)) > > > > > > + /* for each bit in idxmsk starting from idx */ > > > > > > + while (idx < X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) { > > > > > > + idx = find_next_bit(c->idxmsk, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX, > > > > > > + idx); > > > > > > > > > > I'd be mighty tempted to ignore that 80 column rule here ;-) > > > > > > > > Please put the body of the loop into a helper function, the function is large > > > > and there are countless col80 uglinesses in it! > > > > > > I just tried that, its real ugly due to the amount of state you need to > > > pass around. > > > > Does it help if you put that state into a helper structure? > > Yes, this is what I have in mind too. We could iterate on such a state > stucture instead of a couple of single variables. Storing and > restoring the state will then just copying the structure. Any word on this work? I just noticed we actually need this for Intel too, the fixed purpose events have overlapping but non-identical constraint masks. Now we could optimize the Intel case by always iterating from the top down, but it won't cure all cases. For example, suppose one counter (that could be on a FP reg) previously got scheduled on a GP register and we take the fast-path, in that case we would still end up under-utilized.