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 S1752486AbdLMKSO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:18:14 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43412 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752275AbdLMKSK (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:18:10 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:18:07 +0100
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
Message-ID: <20171213101807.GA2883@krava>
References: <20171201141950.GB2421075@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20171206114204.GB10580@krava>
 <20171211153449.GJ2421075@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171211153449.GJ2421075@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:18:09 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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