[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ad03edb-7dc2-6fc8-7978-6257a7746aec@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:31:23 +0300
From: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: a different approach to perf_rotate_context()
On 03.03.2018 20:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 04:43:16PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>> In any case, there's a ton of conflict against the patches here:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/log/?h=perf/testing
>>>
>>> And with those the idea was to move to a virtual time based scheduler
>>> (basically schedule those flexible events that have the biggest lag --
>>> that also solves 1).
>>
>> Thanks for these information. I will study this approach. Maybe that is
>> our path to PMU sharing.
>
> So I'm really not convinced on that whole PMU sharing.
>
>> What's is the status of this work? Would it
>> land in 4.17?
>
> These patches might make 4.17, they got held up because of the whole
> meltdown/spectre crap and I need to get back to them.
>
That work is long desired and would bring performance boost, specifically on
server systems in per-process profiling mode, accompanied by good speedup on
context switches. Undoubtedly meltdown/spectre related activity
substituted it at some point but that improvements would still bring
significant value and is still awaited.
BR,
Alexey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists