[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170905111943.v2twm3jgu3mct3ib@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 13:19:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@...el.com>,
Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@...el.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf: Rewrite enabled/running timekeeping
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 01:17:39PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> However we can't completely get rid of whole tree iterations because of
> inheritance code on forks in perf_event_init_context() here:
Right, fork() / inherit needs to iterate the full thing, nothing to be
done about that.
I'll go make proper patches for that timekeeping rewrite and then have a
look at your patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists