Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753592AbaJJMCJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:02:09 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:54032 "EHLO mail-wg0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751579AbaJJMCG (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:02:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:02:02 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jiri Olsa , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Matt Fleming , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Support task events with Intel CQM Message-ID: <20141010120202.GY14343@console-pimps.org> References: <1411567455-31264-1-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <1411567455-31264-11-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <20141008110743.GF4750@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20141008121044.GS14343@console-pimps.org> <20141008144957.GK10832@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141008144957.GK10832@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 08 Oct, at 04:49:57PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > The thing is, with multiplexing you cannot fail at event creation time > anyhow. The only time where you can 'fail' is when programming the PMU, > when its full its full. > > Those that don't fit, get to wait their turn. For CQM it's not about "fitting" everything in the PMU but more about monitoring the same thing (task, cgroup) with different events, i.e. one thing with two RMIDs. We have the RMID recycling algorithm to make things fit, but that doesn't help us out here. An example scenario that isn't supported by this patch series is monitoring a cgroup while simultaneously monitoring a task that's part of that cgroup. Whichever event is created second will fail at event init time. And that seemed like a fair approach to me. But the more I think about it, the more I begin to agree that maybe we should allow users the flexibility to create conflicting events, particularly because there appears to be precedent in other parts of perf. Hmm... "rotation" is starting to become my least favourite word. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/