public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Sharing PMU counters across compatible events
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:18:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171213101807.GA2883@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171211153449.GJ2421075@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 07:34:49AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jiri.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:42:04PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > I see this rather on the hw level, since it concerns HW counters
> > 
> > I think we could detect same (alias) events at the time counters
> > are added/removed on/from the cpu and share their HW part like
> > counter idx, regs and such (struct hw_perf_event_cpu in my changes)
> > 
> > this way it'd be completely transparent for generic code
> 
> I don't quite follow why doing this in arch code is better than
> generic.  Doing this in arch means we'd need to do the same thing
> multiple times for different archs.  Why is that better?

so I can see this to be useful for HW conters only, because
of limited number of regs

as for the higher level on which this could be implemented I
see some pitfals with event rotations as Peter mentioned and
task/cpu contexts scheduling.. while the hw-level implementation
seems pretty straight forward

I'll test the code and let's see ;-)

jirka

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-13 10:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-01 14:19 [RFC] Sharing PMU counters across compatible events Tejun Heo
2017-12-06 11:42 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-12-11 15:34   ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-13 10:18     ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2017-12-13 16:15       ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-06 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-12-11 15:47   ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-12 22:37     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-12-13 16:18       ` Tejun Heo

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=20171213101807.GA2883@krava \
    --to=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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