Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] perf: Migrate perf to use new tick dependency mask
 model
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1447424529-13671-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1447424529-13671-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
Message-ID: <56548E15.5050004@ezchip.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:19:33 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1447424529-13671-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2015 16:19:45.4442 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AMSPR02MB119
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2215
Lines: 61

On 11/13/2015 09:22 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Instead of providing asynchronous checks for the nohz subsystem to verify
> perf event tick dependency, migrate perf to the new mask.
>
> Perf needs the tick for two situations:
>
> 1) Freq events. We could set the tick dependency when those are
> installed on a CPU context. But setting a global dependency on top of
> the global freq events accounting is much easier. If people want that
> to be optimized, we can still refine that on the per-CPU tick dependency
> level. This patch dooesn't change the current behaviour anyway.
>
> 2) Throttled events: this is a per-cpu dependency.
>
>
> @@ -3540,8 +3530,10 @@ static void unaccount_event(struct perf_event *event)
>   		atomic_dec(&nr_comm_events);
>   	if (event->attr.task)
>   		atomic_dec(&nr_task_events);
> -	if (event->attr.freq)
> -		atomic_dec(&nr_freq_events);
> +	if (event->attr.freq) {
> +		if (atomic_dec_and_test(&nr_freq_events))
> +			tick_nohz_clear_dep(TICK_PERF_EVENTS_BIT);
> +	}
>   	if (event->attr.context_switch) {
>   		static_key_slow_dec_deferred(&perf_sched_events);
>   		atomic_dec(&nr_switch_events);
>
> @@ -7695,7 +7687,7 @@ static void account_event(struct perf_event *event)
>   		atomic_inc(&nr_task_events);
>   	if (event->attr.freq) {
>   		if (atomic_inc_return(&nr_freq_events) == 1)
> -			tick_nohz_full_kick_all();
> +			tick_nohz_set_dep(TICK_PERF_EVENTS_BIT);
>   	}
>   	if (event->attr.context_switch) {
>   		atomic_inc(&nr_switch_events);

It would be helpful to have a comment explaining why these two
can't race with each other, e.g. this race:

[cpu 1]  atomic_dec_and_test
[cpu 2] atomic_inc_return
[cpu 2] tick_nohz_set_dep()
[cpu 1] tick_nohz_clear_dep()

Or perhaps this is a true race condition possibility?

I think we're OK for the sched cases since they're protected under
the rq lock, I think.  I'm not sure about the POSIX cpu timers.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com

--
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/