[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1264068712.4283.1141.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:11:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.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 Thu, 2010-01-21 at 11:08 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> > Do you mean this:
> >> >
> >> > hw_perf_group_sched_in_begin(&x86_pmu);
> >> >
> >> > for_each_event(event, group) {
> >> > event->enable(); //do the collection here
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > if (hw_perf_group_sched_in_end(&x86_pmu)) {
> >> > rollback...
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > That requires to know in advance if we have hardware pmu
> >> > in the list though (can be a flag in the group).
> >>
>
> I don't think this model can work without scheduling for each event.
>
> Imagine the situation where you have more events than you have
> counters. At each tick you:
No it wont indeed, but it will work for where we now use
hw_perf_group_sched_in() without having to replicate lots of code.
For the cases you mention I see no other way than to try and schedule
each event individually.
--
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