[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090325123514.GB28639@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:35:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] perf_counter: kerneltop: mmap_pages argument
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 13:18 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > provide a knob to set the number of mmap data pages.
> >
> > > + " -m pages --mmap_pages=<pages> # number of mmap data pages\n"
> >
> > Btw., we really want this to be auto-tuning to a large degree. If
> > the kernel observes missed events, it should create a
> > PERF_EVENT_OVERFLOW==0x3 record, with the number of missed events -
> > or something like that.
>
> Well, who's to say we ever see that overflow record if we're
> having trouble tracking the output as is?
it would overwrite the last (new) record - so it's deterministic and
the tail does not consume the head - just bites itself a bit.
But it would still be somewhat racy, if user-space _just_ managed to
process those records ...
> How important is it for people to have accurate overflow
> information other than the current -- we can't keep up -- kind?
it's somewhat important and could pave the way for the kernel to
react to overflow more intelligently (via iterim buffering or
whatever future mechanism).
It's also a general quality of implementation principle for kernel
code: if we want to hide information we want to hide it from
_user-space_, not the kernel. Hiding information from the kernel
almost always causes trouble down the line.
> One possible solution is making the control page writable and
> writing the userspace read position to it, then the kernel can, on
> perf_output_begin() detect the overflow and count the number of
> overwritten events.
>
> This overflow count could then be published back into the control
> page.
Ok, that's a nice idea - it keeps the amount of dirty cachelines
minimal.
> TBH I'm not much of a fan, making all these pages writable just
> opens a whole can of worms, and that accurate overflow tracking
> will put more code in the output path.
What can of worms can you see there? (It would not be COW-ed - if
you share those pages without knowing that they are shared then
confused user-space will have to keep broken pieces of iteself.)
> Also, when mixing streams (events,mmap) is a single: you missed
> 'n' events still good?
How would such mixing work? Multiple counters streaming into the
same mmap area?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists