[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBR5nCfn756Wb8xQEb9Xse+UQPAbGy969cP4sxO78-Nq4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:47:25 -0800
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] perf core: Add PERF_COUNT_SW_CGROUP_SWITCHES event
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:28 AM Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > + prev_cgrp = task_css_check(prev, perf_event_cgrp_id, 1)->cgroup;
> > + next_cgrp = task_css_check(next, perf_event_cgrp_id, 1)->cgroup;
> > +
> > + if (prev_cgrp != next_cgrp)
> > + perf_sw_event_sched(PERF_COUNT_SW_CGROUP_SWITCHES, 1, 0);
>
> Seems to be the perf cgroup only, not all cgroups.
> That's a big difference and needs to be documented properly.
>
We care about the all-cgroup case.
> Probably would make sense to have two events for both, one for
> all cgroups and one for perf only.
>
>
>
> -Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists