[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1321361719.1421.67.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:55:18 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] perf, core: disable pmu while context rotation only
if needed
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:38 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 01:07:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 13:34 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently pmu is disabled and re-enabled on each timer interrupt even
> > > when no rotation or frequency adjustment is needed. On Intel CPU this
> > > results in two writes into PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL MSR per tick. On bare metal
> > > it does not cause significant slowdown, but when running perf in a virtual
> > > machine it leads to 20% slowdown on my machine.
> >
> >
> > I detest asymmetric locking like that, does something like the below
> > also work for you?
> >
> It does.
ok, great.
> >
> > + if (!rotate && !freq)
> > + goto done;
> > +
> > perf_ctx_lock(cpuctx, cpuctx->task_ctx);
> > perf_pmu_disable(cpuctx->ctx.pmu);
> > +
> > + if (!freq)
> > + goto rotate;
> > +
> Why goto, why not
>
> if (freq) {
> > perf_ctx_adjust_freq(&cpuctx->ctx, interval);
> > if (ctx)
> > perf_ctx_adjust_freq(ctx, interval);
> }
>
> And the same with next goto.
Because, uhm,. dunno. Let me make that if()s and commit the thing.
Thanks!
--
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