Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751172AbaLPMgM (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:12 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:46836 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750926AbaLPMgL (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:36:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:35:58 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Liang, Kan" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "eranian@google.com" , "ak@linux.intel.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf, core: Use sample period avg as child event's initial period Message-ID: <20141216123558.GX3337@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1418397035-7014-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <20141215095551.GU29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F0770168DAE9@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F0770168DAE9@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:17:33PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > This doesn't seem to make any kind of sense, and its weirdly implemented. > > > > So why would you push anything to the original parent? Your description > > states that the parent event usually has 1, and then you argue about fixing > > that by using the orig parent, but then you need to update the orig parent. > > Did you go in circles and confuse yourself? Why not push things into the > > regular parent event if you're going to push things up. > > My thought is that the original parent is the root of the tree. No parent is the root; I thought your orig parent thing was the event you forked from, but now I see its not. See inherit_event(), event->parent is the root event. > If there is an > average sample period for nodes, it should be kept in the root node, since > it's the only node everyone knows. Right, but, that's also contention central.. > > Also, since you can have multiple child events, on many CPUs local64_t is > > the wrong data type, furthermore its going to be a scalability issue on big > > hardware. > > I'd like to have avg_sample_period for each CPU. The similar usage is > period_left in hw_perf_event. Well, some events are per cpu, some are per task. The per task events do not have per-cpu storage and their parent can be on whatever cpu. > We don't need to share the avg_sample_period between CPUs, after all > it's only a reference. Right, some smarts are needed to avoid the worst contention there. Maybe a jiffy timestamp and don't update more than once every HZ jiffies or so. -- 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/