Re: [PATCH v6] perf: Sharing PMU counters across compatible events

Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06T09:15:05Z

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 11:06:06PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 2019, at 12:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 05:11:08PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> >
> >>> I think we can use one of the event as master. We need to be careful when
> >>> the master event is removed, but it should be doable. Let me try.
> >>
> >> Actually, there is a bigger issue when we use one event as the master: what
> >> shall we do if the master event is not running? Say it is an cgroup event,
> >> and the cgroup is not running on this cpu. An extra master (and all these
> >> array hacks) help us get O(1) complexity in such scenario.
> >>
> >> Do you have suggestions on how to solve this problem? Maybe we can keep the
> >> extra master, and try get rid of the double alloc?
> >
> > Right, you have to consider scope when sharing. The master should be the
> > largest scope event and any slaves should be complete subsets.
> >
> > Without much thought this seems a fairly straight forward constraint;
> > that is, given cgroups I'm not immediately seeing how we can violate
> > that.
> >
> > Basically, pick the cgroup event nearest to the root as the master.
> > We have to have logic to re-elect the master anyway for deletion, so
> > changing it on add shouldn't be different.
> >
> > (obviously the root-cgroup is cpu-wide and always on, and if you have
> > two events from disjoint subtrees they have no overlap, so it doesn't
> > make sense to share anyway)
>
> Hmm... I didn't think about cgroup structure with this much detail. And
> this is very interesting idea.
>
> OTOH, non-cgroup event could also be inactive. For example, when we have
> to rotate events, we may schedule slave before master.

Right, although I suppose in that case you can do what you did in your
patch here. If someone did IOC_DISABLE on the master, we'd have to
re-elect a master -- obviously (and IOC_ENABLE).

> And if the master is in an event group, it will be more complicated...

Hurmph, do you actually have that use-case? And yes, this one is tricky.

Would it be sufficient if we disallow group events to be master (but
allow them to be slaves) ?

> Currently, we already have two separate scopes in sharing: one for cpu_ctx,
> the other for task_ctx. I would like to enable as much sharing as possible
> with in each ctx.

Right, although at plumbers you mentioned the idea of sticking
per-task-per-cpu events on the cpu context (as opposed on the task
context where they live today), which is interesting (it's basically an
extention of the cgroup scheduling to per-task scope).