[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181017171955.GQ3121@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:19:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"megha.dey@...el.com" <megha.dey@...el.com>,
"frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf: Rewrite core context handling
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:43:27PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> > That makes task and cpu contexts wildly different, which will complicate
> > matters I feel.
> >
>
> I think we only need different logic when adding events to the task/cpu
> contexts. The ctx_sched_in() and ctx_sched_out() will need some extra
> logic to filter out events that are not being scheduled (don't schedule
> events on PMU-a when rotating PMU-b). This logic will be the same for
> task and cpu context. The difference is, the CPU context will not have
> such events, because we never added such event to CPU context.
>
> Does this make sense? I could try draft a RFC to see how difficult it is.
I'm not sure it saves much, if we have multiple per-cpu contexts we get
to re-introduce the active_ctx_list and loose the simplification for the
online status.
Plus that fundamental assymetry -- which would bother my OCD forever
more :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists