[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105311235080.2204@cl320.eecs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:39:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vince Weaver <vweaver1@...s.utk.edu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com
Subject: Re: perf: [patch] regression with PERF_EVENT_IOC_REFRESH
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> IOC_REFRESH sets event->event_limit, not wakeup_events.
ahh, yes.
So it's a userspace "bug".
The test code called a "IOC_REFRESH, 3" whenever it got signalled.
It didn't distinguish between whether it was a plain overflow or if it was
a ring-buffer overflow (can it distinguish?).
Thus the watermark bug was confusing the user-space code into refreshing
when it was not necessary.
> > I'm also bisecting the other problem I mentioned, the one where overflows
> > are 10x too large on 3.0-rc1. I'm at work with a Nehalem machine so the
> > bisect should go faster than the bisect I had to do on an atom machine
> > this weekend.
>
> It wouldn't be the SIGIO fix would it?, with that every overflow
> generates a SIGIO, not only the poll() wakeups. And ouch at bisecting
> (or even building a kernel) on an Atom, those things are horridly slow.
Oh, it could be the SIGIO fix. I hadn't realized that got merged already.
And yes, bisect on atom is painful, but my alternatives were a 1.7GHz P4
(with small disk, so would have been over NFS), a 600MHz G3 iBook, or an
armv6 machine. So atom it was.
Vince
vweaver1@...s.utk.edu
--
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