[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240607110214.GQ8774@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:02:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ben Gainey <Ben.Gainey@....com>
Cc: "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Clark <James.Clark@....com>,
"adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"irogers@...gle.com" <irogers@...gle.com>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] perf: Support PERF_SAMPLE_READ with inherit
On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 10:16:15AM +0000, Ben Gainey wrote:
> > > @@ -3532,11 +3544,18 @@ perf_event_context_sched_out(struct
> > > task_struct *task, struct task_struct *next)
> > > perf_ctx_disable(ctx, false);
> > >
> > > /* PMIs are disabled; ctx->nr_pending is stable. */
> > > - if (local_read(&ctx->nr_pending) ||
> > > + if (ctx->nr_inherit_read ||
> > > + next_ctx->nr_inherit_read ||
> > > + local_read(&ctx->nr_pending) ||
> > > local_read(&next_ctx->nr_pending)) {
> >
> > This seems unfortunate, nr_pending and nr_inherit_read are both used
> > exclusively to inhibit this context switch optimization. Surely they
> > can
> > share the exact same counter.
> >
> > That is, rename nr_pending and use it for both?
>
> Sure, how about "nr_no_switch_fast" ?
Yeah, I suppose.
> Sure, presumably you are happy with just calling
> "perf_event_count(event, false)" everywhere it is currently used,
> rather than renaming it to something shorter and keeping the two
> functions?
Yeah, there aren't *that* many instances. Your current patch already
touches them all anyway.
> > That is, I would really rather you had:
> >
> > static inline u64 perf_event_count(struct perf_event *event, bool
> > self)
> > {
> > if (self)
> > return local64_read(&event->count);
> >
> > return local64_read(&event->count) + local64_read(&event-
> > >child_count);
> > }
> >
> > And then actually use that argument as intended.
>
>
> Fair point.
>
> I was trying to avoid the 3 subsequent uses all having to repeat
> "from_sample && has_inherit_and_sample_read(&event->attr)", which feels
> a bit of a pit-trappy.
>
> I suppose I could pull that into a "use_self_value(from_sample,event)"?
IIRC they all originate in a single location around perf_output_read(),
that already has the event and could easily 'correct' the semantic
meaning by doing the above once or so.
> >
> > > @@ -7205,13 +7232,14 @@ void perf_event__output_id_sample(struct
> > > perf_event *event,
> > >
> > > static void perf_output_read_one(struct perf_output_handle
> > > *handle,
> > > struct perf_event *event,
> > > - u64 enabled, u64 running)
> > > + u64 enabled, u64 running,
> > > + bool from_sample)
> > > {
> > > u64 read_format = event->attr.read_format;
> > > u64 values[5];
> > > int n = 0;
> > >
> > > - values[n++] = perf_event_count(event);
> > > + values[n++] = perf_event_count(event, from_sample);
> >
> > ...observe the fail... from_sample != self-value-only
>
> By fail you are referring to the difference in names?
The difference in meaning, one is from-sample, the other is self-value.
Per the extra condition squirrelled away they are not equivalent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists