linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]: perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170529152931.yxapmev3ix3hn5bk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2017 17:29:31 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@...el.com>,
        Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@...el.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process
 profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:22:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:43:09PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> > On 29.05.2017 15:03, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> > > Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> 
> > > > +		} else if (event->cpu > node_event->cpu) {
> > > > +			node = &((*node)->rb_right);
> > > > +		} else {
> > > > +			list_add_tail(&event->group_list_entry,
> > > > +					&node_event->group_list);
> > > 
> > > So why is this better than simply having per-cpu event lists plus one
> > > for per-thread events?
> > 
> > Good question. Choice of data structure and layout depends on the operations
> > applied to the data so keeping groups as a tree simplifies and improves the
> > implementation in terms of scalability and performance. Please ask more if
> > any.
> 
> Since these lists are per context, and each task can have a context,
> you'd end up with per-task-per-cpu memory, which is something we'd like
> to avoid (some archs have very limited per-cpu memory space etc..).
> 
> Also, we'd like to have that tree for other reasons, like for instance
> that heterogeneous PMU crud ARM has. Also, with a tree we can easier do
> time based round-robin scheduling,
> 

Oh and in general multi-PMU stuff, aside from hetero PMU becomes much
easier.