From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759677Ab0FJTyz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:54:55 -0400
Received: from mail-ww0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:33065 "EHLO
	mail-ww0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754065Ab0FJTyx (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:54:53 -0400
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=dVQ7VbfWeb5uFem0VT5Tv2gqglQfohHBxVuBdeAHZNaaO0+5jCD+xmaQvu+z7VZM8m
         jb0sB6XerAl9jdEqL6NE6RlfGXWXpo4KXpZmlfp/4a7K6N9Ai+YxKzcRV+hY93PE/E8V
         p0ikS6WmswhnhHYzYDXgL9sXGpL0yoK9JZu4E=
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:54:53 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
       Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
       Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
       Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
       Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
       Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf: Provide a proper stop action for software
	events
Message-ID: <20100610195451.GI5255@nowhere>
References: <1276141760-11590-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1276141760-11590-2-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1276166813.2077.96.camel@twins> <1276168242.2077.134.camel@twins> <20100610161234.GA5255@nowhere> <1276186576.2077.554.camel@twins>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1276186576.2077.554.camel@twins>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:16:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 18:12 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:10:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 12:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Something like the below would work, the only 'problem' is that it grows
> > > > hw_perf_event.
> > > 
> > > If we do the whole PAUSEd thing right, we'd not need this I think.
> > 
> > 
> > It's not needed, and moreover software_pmu:stop/start() can be the same
> > than software:pmu:disable/enable() without the need to add another check
> > in the fast path.
> > 
> > But we need perf_event_stop/start() to work on software events. And in fact
> > now that we use the hlist_del_init, it's safe, but a bit wasteful in
> > the period reset path. That's another problem that is not critical, but
> > if you want to solve this by ripping the differences between software and
> > hardware (which I agree with), we need a ->reset_period callback.
> > 
> Why? ->start() should reprogram the hardware, so a
> ->stop()/poke-at-state/->start() cycle is much more flexible.


Reconsidering the situation after remembering the race with software
events on period adjusting:

In fact, if we want to support start/stop on software events, we still
need the if (!software event) in perf_adjust_period(), otherwise
start and stop may race on a software event with the hlist ops.

So it's now both useless and dangerous.

What about keeping this software event check for now?
Once we'll have a pmu:disable_all()/enable_all(), this
can serve as a more appropriate check later.