[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263918323.4283.707.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:25:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
davem@...emloft.net, perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net, eranian@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 16:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Also, I see you set an ->unthrottle, but then don't implement it, but
> > comment it as todo, which is strange because that implies its broken. If
> > there's an ->unthrottle method it will throttle, so if its todo, the
> > safest thing is to not set it.
>
>
> Yeah, that's because I have a too vague idea on what is the purpose
> of the unthrottle() callback.
>
> I've read the concerned codes that call this, several times, and I still
> can't figure out what happens there, not sure what is meant by throttle
> or unthrottle there :-/
OK, so not setting it is relatively safe.
As to what it does, it has to undo everything you do when
perf_event_overflow() returns true, which happens when ->unthrottle is
set and we get more than sysctl_perf_event_sample_rate/HZ events in a
jiffy.
If you look at the x86 implementation, you'll see that we simply disable
the hardware counter when the overflow call returns true, so the
unthrottle() callback simply enables it again.
--
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