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 S1752526AbcHHQMx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 12:12:53 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:33045 "EHLO
	mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752293AbcHHQMu (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 12:12:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALcN6mj9ZLaZNcWoJULRaR1bPDhC-oHa1JvRiBcTU3djhj45HA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1470539577-102094-1-git-send-email-davidcc@google.com>
 <1470539577-102094-4-git-send-email-davidcc@google.com> <9b29b625-d019-6671-5676-3c58a31a6d3f@gmail.com>
 <CALcN6mj9ZLaZNcWoJULRaR1bPDhC-oHa1JvRiBcTU3djhj45HA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 11:12:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CACbG30-nAW2m6poM=gJN3UxpNL3oBSML9xxXeJrOWv7VFuLiag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] perf/core: introduce PMU_EV_CAP_READ_ACTIVE_PKG
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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