[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18894.48499.125187.92480@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:14:43 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] perf_counter: unify and fix delayed counter wakeup
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> While going over the wakeup code I noticed delayed wakeups only work
> for hardware counters but basically all software counters rely on
> them.
Hmmm, I don't like the extra latency this introduces, particularly
since on powerpc we already have a good way to avoid the latency.
I did a grep for perf_swcounter_event calls that have nmi=1, and there
are a couple, to my surprise. Why does the context switch one have
nmi=1? It certainly isn't called from an actual NMI handler. Is it
because of locking issues?
The other one is the tracepoint call in perf_tpcounter_event. I
assume you have put nmi=1 there because you don't know what context
we're in. That means we'll always delay the wakeup even when we might
be in an ordinary interrupt-on process context. Couldn't we do
better?
Paul.
--
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