[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170519121056.c45jbsfgcdjfuoow@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:10:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Drop kernel samples even though :u is
specified
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 08:06:09PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> SNIP
>
> > I would much rather see this in generic code, somewhere around
> > __perf_event_overflow() I suppose. That would retain proper accounting
> > for the interrupt rate etc..
> >
> > Also it would work for all architectures. Because I'm thinking more than
> > just x86 will suffer from skid.
> Yes, moving to generic code is better. Thanks for the suggestion! I will do
> that.
>
> > If you're really worried, I suppose you can put it behind a PERF_PMU_CAP
> > flag or something.
> I guess what you are suggesting is to add checking like:
>
> if (is_sampling_event(event)) {
> if (event->pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT) {
> return;
> }
> }
Ah, I was more thinking of something like PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_SKID or
something that would skip the test and preserve current behaviour.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists