Message-ID: <4BB27764.2060802@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:12:52 -0700
From:	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
	Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
	Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>,
	Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf_events: support for uncore a.k.a. nest units

On 3/30/2010 10:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
-- my comments snipped --
>
> Right, I've got some definite ideas on how to go here, just need some
> time to implement them.
>
> The first thing that needs to be done is get rid of all the __weak
> functions (with exception of perf_callchain*, since that really is arch
> specific).
>
> For hw_perf_event_init() we need to create a pmu registration facility
> and lookup a pmu_id, either passed as an actual id found in sysfs or an
> open file handle from sysfs (the cpu pmu would be pmu_id 0 for backwards
> compat).
>
> hw_perf_disable/enable() would become struct pmu functions and
> perf_disable/enable need to become per-pmu, most functions operate on a
> specific event, for those we know the pmu and hence can call the per-pmu
> version. (XXX find those sites where this is not true).

This sounds like a good idea.  Right now for the Wire-Speed processor, we have a 
loop that goes through all of the nest PMU's and calls their respective per-pmu 
functions.

>
> Then we can move to context, yes I think we want new context for new
> PMUs, otherwise we get very funny RR interleaving problems. My idea was
> to move find_get_context() into struct pmu as well, this allows you to
> have per-pmu contexts.

Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense, so that there's not some sort of fixed 
association of pmu contexts to cpu contexts, for example.

> Initially I'd not allow per-pmu-per-task contexts
> because then things like perf_event_task_sched_out() would get rather
> complex.

Definitely.  I don't think it makes sense to have per-task context on 
nest/uncore PMUs.  At least we haven't found any justification for it.

>
> For RR we can move away from perf_event_task_tick and let the pmu
> install a (hr)timer for this on their own.

This is necessary I think, because of the access time for some of the PMU's.  I 
wonder though if it should, perhaps optionally, be off-loaded to a high-priority 
task to do the switching so that access latency to the PMU can be controlled.

As I mentioned when we met, some of the Wire-Speed processor nest PMU control 
registers are accessed via SCOM, which is an internal, 200 MHz serial bus.  We 
are being quoted ~525 SCOM bus ticks to do a PMU control register access, which 
comes out to about 2.5 microseconds.  If you figure 5 accesses to rotate the 
events on a PMU, that's a minimum of 12.5 microseconds.

>
> I've been planning to implement this for more than a week now, its just
> that other stuff keeps getting in the way.
>

Well, it's not as if this is a trivial task either :)

- Corey

--
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