From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753020Ab0AUMCd (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:02:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751795Ab0AUMCc (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:02:32 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f220.google.com ([209.85.220.220]:35762 "EHLO mail-fx0-f220.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750822Ab0AUMCc (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:02:32 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=B563mTZDFUZoYMqmhLHDBD9zqcG+Jt8iY4An4BY3WCzkjHVznz35BiqQFiFn1M0Rq6 YErdnHZ55Q+XKAEYS0unJUVnMugKEUGakBC0Vx27PM4mQ0wSfkoiqyIwccELdkJGRQ6x 8NcsQM+sLo8syTToIyuuZy00CF4FoCzjuibeI= Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:02:26 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Stephane Eranian Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, paulus@samba.org, davem@davemloft.net, perfmon2-devel@lists.sf.net, eranian@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5) Message-ID: <20100121120224.GE5017@nowhere> References: <4b5430c6.0f975e0a.1bf9.ffff85fe@mx.google.com> <20100118134324.GB10364@nowhere> <1263822898.4283.558.camel@laptop> <20100118142004.GD10364@nowhere> <1263825158.4283.590.camel@laptop> <20100118144556.GE10364@nowhere> <20100121104513.GA5017@nowhere> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:44:03PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > If the scheduling validation fails, then you just need to rollback > > the whole group. > > > > That's sensibly what you did in your patch, right? Except the loop > > is now handled by the core code. > > > > > Ok, I think I missed where you were actually placing that loop. > So you want to do this in group_sched_in(), right? Exactly! > > > > I don't understand why that can't be done with the above model. > > In your patch we iterate through the whole group, collect events, > > and schedule them. > > > > With the above, the collection is just done on enable(), and the scheduling > > is done with the new pmu callbacks. > > > > The thing is sensibly the same, where is the obstacle? > > > There is none. You've just hoisted the some of the code from > hw_perf_group_sched_in(). Exactly :)