[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBRO=LNwHbRWKE_NnR5TUTh3sjTyp-9BOkvxQGKb2f3k7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:13:27 +0100
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf stat: explicit grouping yields unexpected results
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 07:34:57AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Btw., does the kernel side currently support discovery of such
>> impossible group scheduling constraints at group setup time?
>
> Up to a point.
>
It is only looking at the group itself not the overall condition
of the system, e.g., the other HT thread is case of shared
resources.
I think all it guarantees is that if the events in the group
are compatible with each other. And I think it covers the case
where the events use different counters but the same shared
resource, e.g., offcore_response on Intel X86.
>> If not
>> then it probably should and it should reject them straight away.
>
> We do I think, for the case where its obvious it can never fit.
>
> That said, if you have a pinned cpu event, it all comes apart.
You mean in the group?
--
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