[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1b2a1b6-8b6d-40b4-84d4-d007c024fc84@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 20:16:15 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Luo Gengkun <luogengkun@...weicloud.com>, peterz@...radead.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] perf/core: Fix incorrect time diff in tick adjust
period
On 27/08/24 19:42, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>
> On 2024-08-21 9:42 a.m., Luo Gengkun wrote:
>> Perf events has the notion of sampling frequency which is implemented in
>> software by dynamically adjusting the counter period so that samples occur
>> at approximately the target frequency. Period adjustment is done in 2
>> places:
>> - when the counter overflows (and a sample is recorded)
>> - each timer tick, when the event is active
>> The later case is slightly flawed because it assumes that the time since
>> the last timer-tick period adjustment is 1 tick, whereas the event may not
>> have been active (e.g. for a task that is sleeping).
>>
>
> Do you have a real-world example to demonstrate how bad it is if the
> algorithm doesn't take sleep into account?
>
> I'm not sure if introducing such complexity in the critical path is
> worth it.
>
>> Fix by using jiffies to determine the elapsed time in that case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun@...weicloud.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/perf_event.h | 1 +
>> kernel/events/core.c | 11 ++++++++---
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> index 1a8942277dda..d29b7cf971a1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> @@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ struct hw_perf_event {
>> * State for freq target events, see __perf_event_overflow() and
>> * perf_adjust_freq_unthr_context().
>> */
>> + u64 freq_tick_stamp;
>> u64 freq_time_stamp;
>> u64 freq_count_stamp;
>> #endif
>> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
>> index a9395bbfd4aa..86e80e3ef6ac 100644
>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
>> #include <linux/pgtable.h>
>> #include <linux/buildid.h>
>> #include <linux/task_work.h>
>> +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>>
>> #include "internal.h"
>>
>> @@ -4120,7 +4121,7 @@ static void perf_adjust_freq_unthr_events(struct list_head *event_list)
>> {
>> struct perf_event *event;
>> struct hw_perf_event *hwc;
>> - u64 now, period = TICK_NSEC;
>> + u64 now, period, tick_stamp;
>> s64 delta;
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(event, event_list, active_list) {
>> @@ -4148,6 +4149,10 @@ static void perf_adjust_freq_unthr_events(struct list_head *event_list)
>> */
>> event->pmu->stop(event, PERF_EF_UPDATE);
>>
>> + tick_stamp = jiffies64_to_nsecs(get_jiffies_64());
>
> Seems it only needs to retrieve the time once at the beginning, not for
> each event.
>
> There is a perf_clock(). It's better to use it for the consistency.
perf_clock() is much slower, and for statistical sampling it doesn't
have to be perfect.
>
> Thanks,
> Kan
>> + period = tick_stamp - hwc->freq_tick_stamp;
>> + hwc->freq_tick_stamp = tick_stamp;
>> +
>> now = local64_read(&event->count);
>> delta = now - hwc->freq_count_stamp;
>> hwc->freq_count_stamp = now;
>> @@ -4157,9 +4162,9 @@ static void perf_adjust_freq_unthr_events(struct list_head *event_list)
>> * reload only if value has changed
>> * we have stopped the event so tell that
>> * to perf_adjust_period() to avoid stopping it
>> - * twice.
>> + * twice. And skip if it is the first tick adjust period.
>> */
>> - if (delta > 0)
>> + if (delta > 0 && likely(period != tick_stamp))
>> perf_adjust_period(event, period, delta, false);>
>> event->pmu->start(event, delta > 0 ? PERF_EF_RELOAD : 0);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists