Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:57:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>,
        Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@intel.com>,
        Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@intel.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] perf/core: use rb trees for pinned/flexible groups
Message-ID: <20170807165711.lqv2yjobqskruvpx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <d98d9399-7292-e14d-5988-adc474f4e54a@linux.intel.com>
 <20170803130002.oatczvnaalplrsep@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <86cbe0b0-a1ec-4d5f-addc-87bccf2e97d7@linux.intel.com>
 <20170804143628.34c2xqxl2e6k2arj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <9d2e25c9-209c-f28a-d601-d3f1a71f032f@linux.intel.com>
 <20170807083913.vfqmwsdzxsczh4yr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170807091326.5e3iec54ninmeyex@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <9ce8c683-791b-add1-33c4-e65233e2398c@linux.intel.com>
 <20170807155527.alarhawa64xqhp62@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <6272c0e7-7254-9035-d0bc-3abf5485d309@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6272c0e7-7254-9035-d0bc-3abf5485d309@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1044
Lines: 22

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:27:30PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> On 07.08.2017 18:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > In the extreme, if you construct your program such that you'll never get
> > hit by the tick (this used to be a popular measure to hide yourself from
> > time accounting)
> 
> Well, some weird thing for me. Never run longer than one tick? 
> I could imaging some I/O bound code that would fast serve some short 
> messages, all the other time waiting for incoming requests.
> Not sure if CPU events monitoring is helpful in this case.

Like I said, in extreme. Typically its less weird.

Another example is scheduling a very constrained counter/group along
with a bunch of simple events such that the group will only succeed to
schedule when its the first. In this case it will get only 1/nr_events
time with RR, as opposed to the other/simple events that will get
nr_counters/nr_events time.

By making it runtime based, the constrained thing will more often be
head of list and acquire equal total runtime to the other events.