[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141008102758.GN14343@console-pimps.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:27:58 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] perf: Make perf_cgroup_from_task() global
On Tue, 07 Oct, at 08:51:57PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:04:08PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
> >
> > Move perf_cgroup_from_task() from kernel/events to include/ along with
> > the necessary struct definitions, so that it can be used by the PMU
> > code.
> >
> > The upcoming Intel Cache Monitoring PMU driver assigns monitoring IDs
> > based on a task's association with a cgroup - all tasks in the same
> > cgroup share an ID. We can use perf_cgroup_from_task() to track this
> > association.
>
> Not yet having read the rest of the patches and maybe understanding
> things wrong, that doesn't sound right.
>
> The RMID should be associated with events, not groups. The event can be
> associated with whatever perf provides {task, cgroup, cpu}.
I think I just wrote the commit message in a goofy way.
What we actually use perf_cgroup_from_task() for is to figure out when
to prohibit an event from being created if it overlaps/conflicts with an
existing event.
I'll rewrite the commit message to be clearer.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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