Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758495AbbGQPDs (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:03:48 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:57204 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757875AbbGQPDq convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:03:46 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,497,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="730800209" From: "Liang, Kan" To: Mark Rutland CC: "a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "acme@kernel.org" , "eranian@google.com" , "ak@linux.intel.com" , "Hunter, Adrian" , "dsahern@gmail.com" , "jolsa@kernel.org" , "namhyung@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/9] perf/x86: Add is_hardware_event Thread-Topic: [PATCH 3/9] perf/x86: Add is_hardware_event Thread-Index: AQHQwEN7VcX/YlgNJ0ytHOK2/LFgK53e9YYAgADD4gA= Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:03:36 +0000 Message-ID: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F0770188DD5E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1437078831-10152-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <1437078831-10152-4-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <20150717104814.GB26091@leverpostej> In-Reply-To: <20150717104814.GB26091@leverpostej> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3540 Lines: 105 > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:33:45PM +0100, kan.liang@intel.com wrote: > > From: Kan Liang > > > > Using is_hardware_event to replace !is_software_event to indicate a > > hardware event. > > Why...? First, the comments of is_software_event is not correct. 0 or !is_software_event is not for a hardware event. is_hardware_event is for a hardware event. Also, the following patch make mix core_misc event be part of hw/sw event, !is_software_event could be either hw event or core_misc event. We need an accurate definition here. > > For an uncore event e, is_hardware_event(e) != !is_software_event(e), > so this will be a change of behaviour... Uncore event cannot be part of hw/sw event group. So it doesn't change the behavior. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kan Liang > > --- > > include/linux/perf_event.h | 7 ++++++- > > kernel/events/core.c | 6 +++--- > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h > > index 2027809..fea0ddf 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h > > +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h > > @@ -761,13 +761,18 @@ static inline bool is_sampling_event(struct > > perf_event *event) } > > > > /* > > - * Return 1 for a software event, 0 for a hardware event > > + * Return 1 for a software event, 0 for other event > > */ > > static inline int is_software_event(struct perf_event *event) { > > return event->pmu->task_ctx_nr == perf_sw_context; } > > > > +static inline int is_hardware_event(struct perf_event *event) { > > + return event->pmu->task_ctx_nr == perf_hw_context; } > > + > > extern struct static_key > perf_swevent_enabled[PERF_COUNT_SW_MAX]; > > > > extern void ___perf_sw_event(u32, u64, struct pt_regs *, u64); diff > > --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c index > > d3dae34..9077867 100644 > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c > > @@ -1347,7 +1347,7 @@ static void perf_group_attach(struct > perf_event *event) > > WARN_ON_ONCE(group_leader->ctx != event->ctx); > > > > if (group_leader->group_flags & PERF_GROUP_SOFTWARE && > > - !is_software_event(event)) > > + is_hardware_event(event)) > > group_leader->group_flags &= ~PERF_GROUP_SOFTWARE; > > > > list_add_tail(&event->group_entry, &group_leader->sibling_list); > @@ > > -1553,7 +1553,7 @@ event_sched_out(struct perf_event *event, > > event->pmu->del(event, 0); > > event->oncpu = -1; > > > > - if (!is_software_event(event)) > > + if (is_hardware_event(event)) > > cpuctx->active_oncpu--; > > if (!--ctx->nr_active) > > perf_event_ctx_deactivate(ctx); > > @@ -1881,7 +1881,7 @@ event_sched_in(struct perf_event *event, > > goto out; > > } > > > > - if (!is_software_event(event)) > > + if (is_hardware_event(event)) > > cpuctx->active_oncpu++; > > if (!ctx->nr_active++) > > perf_event_ctx_activate(ctx); > > ... whereby we won't accuont uncore events as active, and thereforef will > never perform throttling. > > That doesn't sound right. I think active_oncpu should only impact if the group is exclusive. The changes will make pure perf_invalid_context event group never exclusive. If that's a problem, I will change this part back. Thanks, Kan > > Mark. -- 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/