[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4afceb5f-91ba-12fc-415f-0be142f2a3d2@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:55:39 +0300
From: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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
Hi,
On 05.09.2017 14:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
>
Is there any progress so far? The latest patch version is here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/8/118
Powered by blists - more mailing lists