From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: "Leeder, Neil" <nleeder@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@redhat.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>, Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>,
cov@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] perf: add qcom l2 cache perf events driver
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:43:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170207104315.GA28790@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8d61d7fb-71d0-190e-26e3-a72e98cfb10d@codeaurora.org>
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:11:36PM -0500, Leeder, Neil wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> Thanks for those comments - I'll add the fixes.
Cheers!
> On 2/6/2017 10:48 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >I'm still concerned by this use of the filter_match callback, because it
> >depends on the set of other active events, and can change as other
> >events are scheduled in and out.
> >
> >When we schedule in two conflicting events A and B in order, B will fail
> >its filter match. When we scheduled out A and B in order, B will succeed
> >its filter match.
> >
> >The perf core does not expect this inconsistency, and this appears to
> >break the timing update logic in event_sched_out(), when unconditionally
> >called from ctx_sched_out() as part of perf_rotate_context().
> >
> >I would feel much happier if we dropped l2_cache_filter_match(), at
> >least for the timebeing, and handled this as we do for other cases of
> >intra-pmu resource contention.
> >
> >We can then consider the filter_match addition on its own at a later
> >point.
>
> So could this be detected in get_event_idx, the same way we handle
> counter resource contention? That would eliminate filter_match, and
> it's the same way its done in armv7
> (arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c:krait_pmu_get_event_idx()).
Returning -EAGAIN from event_get_ixd() in that case sounds good to me.
Thanks,
Mark.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-07 10:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-03 22:31 [PATCH v9] perf: add qcom l2 cache perf events driver Neil Leeder
2017-02-06 15:48 ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-06 19:11 ` Leeder, Neil
2017-02-07 10:43 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
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=20170207104315.GA28790@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cov@codeaurora.org \
--cc=jcm@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mlangsdo@redhat.com \
--cc=msalter@redhat.com \
--cc=nleeder@codeaurora.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=timur@codeaurora.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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