Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf, x86: Fix event scheduler to solve complex scheduling problems

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 02:27 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > The current x86 event scheduler fails to resolve scheduling problems
> > of certain combinations of events and constraints. This happens esp.
> > for events with complex constraints such as those of the AMD family
> > 15h pmu. The scheduler does not find then an existing solution.
> > Examples are:
> > 
> >         event code      counter         failure         possible
> > solution
> > 
> > 1)      0x043           PMC[2:0]        0               1
> >         0x02E           PMC[3,0]        3               0
> >         0x003           PMC3            FAIL            3
> > 
> > 2)      0x02E           PMC[3,0]        0               3
> >         0x043           PMC[2:0]        1               0
> >         0x045           PMC[2:0]        2               1
> >         0x046           PMC[2:0]        FAIL            2
> > 
> > Scheduling events on counters is a Hamiltonian path problem. To find a
> > possible solution we must traverse all existing paths. This patch
> > implements this.
> > 
> > We need to save all states of already walked paths. If we fail to
> > schedule an event we now rollback the previous state and try to use
> > another free counter until we have analysed all paths.
> > 
> > We might consider to later remove the constraint weight implementation
> > completely, but I left this out as this is a much bigger and more
> > risky change than this fix. 
> 
> Argh, crap. That's because AMD is now the first with overlapping
> constraints. Be sure to let your hardware guys know that they went from
> top to bottom om my appreciation list. AMD used to have no constraints
> and now they have the absolute worst.
> 
> I'd really prefer not to do this for .39, and I'll have to sit down and
> actually read this code. It looks like we went from O(n^2) to O(n!) or
> somesuch, also not much of an improvement. I'll have to analyze the
> solver to see what it does for 'simple' constraints set to see if it
> will indeed be more expensive than the O(n^2) solver we had.
> 
> Also, I think this code could do with a tiny bit of comments ;-)

I'd also prefer if we first had actual testcases in 'perf test' for all these 
failures - it took an *awfully* long time to find these regressions (the event 
scheduler code has been committed for months), while with proper testcases it 
would only take a second to run 'perf test'.

Thanks,

	Ingo