[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268296516.5279.912.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:35:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: eranian@...gle.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, robert.richter@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve task_sched_in()
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:26 -0800, eranian@...gle.com wrote:
> This patch is an optimization in perf_event_task_sched_in() to avoid scheduling
> the events twice in a row. Without it, the perf_disable()/perf_enable() pair
> is invoked twice, thereby pinned events counts while scheduling flexible events
> and we go throuh hw_perf_enable() twice. By encapsulating, the whole sequence
> into perf_disable()/perf_enable() we ensure, hw_perf_enable() is going to be
> invoked only once because of the refcount protection.
Agreed, this makes perfect sense.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
> --
> perf_event.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
> @@ -1382,6 +1382,8 @@ void perf_event_task_sched_in(struct task_struct *task)
> if (cpuctx->task_ctx == ctx)
> return;
>
> + perf_disable();
> +
> /*
> * We want to keep the following priority order:
> * cpu pinned (that don't need to move), task pinned,
> @@ -1394,6 +1396,8 @@ void perf_event_task_sched_in(struct task_struct *task)
> ctx_sched_in(ctx, cpuctx, EVENT_FLEXIBLE);
>
> cpuctx->task_ctx = ctx;
> +
> + perf_enable();
> }
>
> #define MAX_INTERRUPTS (~0ULL)
--
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