[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5D2402E6.7060104@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 10:58:46 +0800
From: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com,
mingo@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com, like.xu@...el.com,
jannh@...gle.com, arei.gonglei@...wei.com, jmattson@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/12] perf/x86: no counter allocation support
On 07/08/2019 10:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Thanks for the comments.
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> index 0ab99c7..19e6593 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> @@ -528,6 +528,7 @@ typedef void (*perf_overflow_handler_t)(struct perf_event *,
>> */
>> #define PERF_EV_CAP_SOFTWARE BIT(0)
>> #define PERF_EV_CAP_READ_ACTIVE_PKG BIT(1)
>> +#define PERF_EV_CAP_NO_COUNTER BIT(2)
>>
>> #define SWEVENT_HLIST_BITS 8
>> #define SWEVENT_HLIST_SIZE (1 << SWEVENT_HLIST_BITS)
>> @@ -895,6 +896,13 @@ extern int perf_event_refresh(struct perf_event *event, int refresh);
>> extern void perf_event_update_userpage(struct perf_event *event);
>> extern int perf_event_release_kernel(struct perf_event *event);
>> extern struct perf_event *
>> +perf_event_create(struct perf_event_attr *attr,
>> + int cpu,
>> + struct task_struct *task,
>> + perf_overflow_handler_t overflow_handler,
>> + void *context,
>> + bool counter_assignment);
>> +extern struct perf_event *
>> perf_event_create_kernel_counter(struct perf_event_attr *attr,
>> int cpu,
>> struct task_struct *task,
> Why the heck are you creating this wrapper nonsense?
(please see early discussions: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/20/868)
I thought we agreed that the perf event created here don't need to consume
an extra counter.
In the previous version, we added a "no_counter" bit to perf_event_attr, and
that will be exposed to user ABI, which seems not good.
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/14/791)
So we wrap a new kernel API above to support this.
Do you have a different suggestion to do this?
(exclude host/guest just clears the enable bit when on VM-exit/entry,
still consumes the counter)
Best,
Wei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists