[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100208074438.GC24721@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:44:38 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf_events: Fix FORK events
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While looking into a problem reported by Pekka, I noticed that I wasn't
> receiving any FORK events for a workload that did fork (see attachment).
ah yes, my old testcase for forks.
> After making the below change, stuff started working again, thing is, I'm
> not sure why.
In case it matters: that workload of 4x fork (and the whole fork events
mechanism) was always very sensitive to the precise timing of when a child
and a parent does what, in the final dance of wait(), do_exit(),
release_task(), etc. when a task exits. Especially on SMP systems.
> The main change is sending the FORK event to the parent instead of the
> child thread, however perf_event_fork() is at the end of copy_process(),
> which is after perf_event_init_task() which inherits all the counters, so
> it should all have worked as it was.
>
> We could of course just slam the commit in and not worry about it, but
> that just doesn't feel right.
Would be nice to figure it out ...
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