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 S1752291AbcHIFE2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 01:04:28 -0400
Received: from mail-ua0-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]:36796 "EHLO
	mail-ua0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751140AbcHIFEZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 01:04:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACbG30-nAW2m6poM=gJN3UxpNL3oBSML9xxXeJrOWv7VFuLiag@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> <CACbG30-nAW2m6poM=gJN3UxpNL3oBSML9xxXeJrOWv7VFuLiag@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 22:04:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CALcN6mgmteBZ1S6HPf=O-+0qN24uuCVrZeXAAc7ei15NJxGxLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] perf/core: introduce PMU_EV_CAP_READ_ACTIVE_PKG
To: Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.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

Hi Nilay,

Sounds good, I will post an updated version.

Thanks,
David

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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