[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190708163021.GG3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 18:30:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] perf: order iterators for visit_groups_merge into a
min-heap
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 11:59:51PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> The groups rbtree holding perf events, either for a CPU or a task, needs
> to have multiple iterators that visit events in group_index (insertion)
> order. Rather than linearly searching the iterators, use a min-heap to go
> from a O(#iterators) search to a O(log2(#iterators)) insert cost per event
> visited.
Is this actually faster for the common (very small n) case?
ISTR 'stupid' sorting algorithms are actually faster when the data fits
into L1
> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/core.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 9a2ad34184b8..396b5ac6dcd4 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -3318,6 +3318,77 @@ static void cpu_ctx_sched_out(struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx,
> ctx_sched_out(&cpuctx->ctx, cpuctx, event_type);
> }
>
> +/* Data structure used to hold a min-heap, ordered by group_index, of a fixed
> + * maximum size.
> + */
Broken comment style.
> +struct perf_event_heap {
> + struct perf_event **storage;
> + int num_elements;
> + int max_elements;
> +};
> +
> +static void min_heap_swap(struct perf_event_heap *heap,
> + int pos1, int pos2)
> +{
> + struct perf_event *tmp = heap->storage[pos1];
> +
> + heap->storage[pos1] = heap->storage[pos2];
> + heap->storage[pos2] = tmp;
> +}
> +
> +/* Sift the perf_event at pos down the heap. */
> +static void min_heapify(struct perf_event_heap *heap, int pos)
> +{
> + int left_child, right_child;
> +
> + while (pos > heap->num_elements / 2) {
> + left_child = pos * 2;
> + right_child = pos * 2 + 1;
> + if (heap->storage[pos]->group_index >
> + heap->storage[left_child]->group_index) {
> + min_heap_swap(heap, pos, left_child);
> + pos = left_child;
> + } else if (heap->storage[pos]->group_index >
> + heap->storage[right_child]->group_index) {
> + min_heap_swap(heap, pos, right_child);
> + pos = right_child;
> + } else {
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/* Floyd's approach to heapification that is O(n). */
> +static void min_heapify_all(struct perf_event_heap *heap)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = heap->num_elements / 2; i > 0; i--)
> + min_heapify(heap, i);
> +}
> +
> +/* Remove minimum element from the heap. */
> +static void min_heap_pop(struct perf_event_heap *heap)
> +{
> + WARN_ONCE(heap->num_elements <= 0, "Popping an empty heap");
> + heap->num_elements--;
> + heap->storage[0] = heap->storage[heap->num_elements];
> + min_heapify(heap, 0);
> +}
Is this really the first heap implementation in the kernel?
> @@ -3378,12 +3453,14 @@ static int visit_groups_merge(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>
> for (css = &cpuctx->cgrp->css; css; css = css->parent) {
> - itrs[num_itrs] = perf_event_groups_first(groups,
> + heap.storage[heap.num_elements] =
> + perf_event_groups_first(groups,
> cpu,
> css->cgroup);
> - if (itrs[num_itrs]) {
> - num_itrs++;
> - if (num_itrs == max_itrs) {
> + if (heap.storage[heap.num_elements]) {
> + heap.num_elements++;
> + if (heap.num_elements ==
> + heap.max_elements) {
> WARN_ONCE(
> max_cgroups_with_events_depth,
> "Insufficient iterators for cgroup depth");
That's turning into unreadable garbage due to indentation; surely
there's a solution for that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists