From: Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>
To: David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] perf/core: introduce PMU_EV_CAP_READ_ACTIVE_PKG
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 11:12:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACbG30-nAW2m6poM=gJN3UxpNL3oBSML9xxXeJrOWv7VFuLiag@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALcN6mj9ZLaZNcWoJULRaR1bPDhC-oHa1JvRiBcTU3djhj45HA@mail.gmail.com>
On 7 August 2016 at 15:10, David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Nilay,
>
>>> static int perf_event_read(struct perf_event *event, bool group)
>>> {
>>> - int ret = 0;
>>> + int ret = 0, cpu_to_read;
>>>
>>> - /*
>>> - * If event is enabled and currently active on a CPU, update the
>>> - * value in the event structure:
>>> - */
>>> - if (event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE) {
>>> + cpu_to_read = find_cpu_to_read(event);
>>> +
>>> + if (cpu_to_read >= 0) {
>>> struct perf_read_data data = {
>>> .event = event,
>>> .group = group,
>>> .ret = 0,
>>> };
>>> - ret = smp_call_function_single(event->oncpu,
>>> + ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu_to_read,
>>> __perf_event_read, &data,
>>> 1);
>>> ret = ret ? : data.ret;
>>> } else if (event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE) {
>>>
>>
>> I would like to suggest a small change to this patch. I think the check on
>> PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE should be retained in the perf_event_read()
>> function. The new function should assume that the event is active. I find
>> this more readable since the next check in function perf_event_read() is on
>> PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE.
>
> Two oncoming flags that Intel CQM/CMT will use are meant to allow read
> even if event is inactive. This makes sense in CQM/CMT because the hw
> RMID is always reserved. I am ok with keeping the check for
> STATE_ACTIVE until those flags are actually introduced, tough.
Hello David
Lets go with checking PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE in perf_event_read() for
the time being. With the new version of the patch that you posted, I
find that checking PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE in find_cpu_to_read() makes
you introduce another if statement for checking STATE_INACTIVE.
If your CQM/CMT patches later need the code structure you have now, I
would also support it. But as of now, I think, it is better to check
STATE_ACTIVE in perf_event_read().
Thanks
Nilay
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-08 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-07 3:12 [PATCH v2 0/4] remove unnecessary IPI reading uncore events David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-07 3:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] perf/core: check return value of perf_event_read IPI David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-10 11:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-08-17 20:53 ` David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-07 3:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] perf/core: generalize event->group_flags David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-07 3:12 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] perf/core: introduce PMU_EV_CAP_READ_ACTIVE_PKG David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-07 19:10 ` Nilay Vaish
2016-08-07 20:10 ` David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-08 16:12 ` Nilay Vaish [this message]
2016-08-09 5:04 ` David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-09 22:28 ` [PATCH " David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-10 18:27 ` Nilay Vaish
2016-08-08 10:00 ` [PATCH v3 " David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-07 3:12 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] perf/x86: use PMUEF_READ_CPU_PKG in uncore events David Carrillo-Cisneros
2016-08-10 18:30 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] remove unnecessary IPI reading " Nilay Vaish
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='CACbG30-nAW2m6poM=gJN3UxpNL3oBSML9xxXeJrOWv7VFuLiag@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=nilayvaish@gmail.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davidcc@google.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.com \
--cc=x86@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).