Message-ID: <AANLkTikCYjENib2zfz-rmAM2fZbZEzK-9jgL4D-b40xs@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Nov 2010 16:40:21 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: [RFD] Perf generic context based exclusion/inclusion (was Re: [PATCH
 0/4] Finer granularity and task/cgroup irq time accounting)

Le 24 août 2010 10:14, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> a écrit :
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 19:12 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Well, the task and cgroup information is there but what does it really
>> > > tell me? As long as the irq & softirq time can be caused by any other
>> > > process I don't see the value of this incorrect data point.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Data point will be correct. How it gets used is a different qn. This
>> > interface will be useful for Alert/Paranoid/Annoyed user/admin who
>> > sees that the job exec_time is high but it is not doing any useful
>> > work.
>>
>> I'm very sympathetic with Martin's POV. irq/softirq times per task
>> don't really make sense. In the case you provide above the solution
>> would be to subtract these times from the task execution time, not
>> break it out. In that case he would see his task not do much, and end
>> up with the same action list.
>
> Right, andthis connects to something Frederic sent a few RFC patches for
> some time ago: finegrained irq/softirq perf stat support. If we do
> something in this area we need a facility that enables both types of
> statistics gathering.
>
> Frederic's model is based on exclusion - so you could do a perf stat run
> that excluded softirq and hardirq execution from a workload's runtime.
> It's nifty, as it allows the reduction of measurement noise. (IRQ and
> softirq execution can be regarded as random noise added (or not added)
> to execution times)
>
> Thanks,
>
>        Ingo
>


(Answering thousand years later)

Concerning the softirq/hardirq filtering in perf, this is still
something I want to do,
but now I think we should do it differently, especially we should
extend the idea of exclusion to the generic level.

A "context" is a generic idea: this is something that starts and ends
at specific events. It means this can be expressed with
perf events, for example:

- a context of "lock X held" starts when X is acquired and stops when
X is released
- a context of "irq" starts when we enter irq and ends when we exits irq.

There are tons of other examples. And considering how much we can tune
any perf event already (think about
filters) and the variety of events flavour we have (static
tracepoints, breakpoints, dyn probes), we can define very
precise contexts and count whatever inside:

- count cycles while we hold rq lock

If you consider that events that delimit contexts can, themselves, run
under exclusion/inclusion contexts, you can do
complex things like in this scenario:

- create a enter_irq event and a exit_irq events
- create a lock_acquired and a lock_release event, make them
counting/sampling only under enter_irq --- exit_irq above perf events
based defined context
- attach filter to these lock events, to only trigger if X is the lock name
- create a cycles counting event, make it running under the
lock_acquired -- lock_released above perf events based defined context

The result is that you will only count cycles when we hold X under irq.

I think this is definetely the direction we need to take. When the
function tracers will be available as
trace events, this could become intensely powerful (counting cycles
inside some functions only, or if you hold lock X
under function Y in softirq and.....).

I'm just not sure yet about the interface, perhaps an ioctl to attach
an event to another one
through their fds and tell whether we want the event to enable or
disable the counting/sampling
on the other.
We could have as much "enabler" or "disabler" as we want, or only one
each, not sure yet.
Or may be we want to create the abstraction of "contexts" using fds
for them. Not sure.

We probably also want an attr->enable_on_schedule.

Anyway, I'll certainly work on that after the dwarf unwinding is good enough.
--
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