public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox