Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during
 per-process profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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>
References: <d676ecc5-488a-e82c-b85d-ccc8e0f02c4e@linux.intel.com>
 <20170822202106.GP32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Corp.
Message-ID: <20a0366a-80ac-4e78-9b0d-277cf79cdd8b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:12:40 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170822202106.GP32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1176
Lines: 31

Hi,
On 22.08.2017 23:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:17:15AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> Hi,
> 
> Please don't post new versions in reply to old versions, that gets them
> lost in thread sorted views.
> 
>> This patch set v7 moves event groups into rb trees and implements 
>> skipping to the current CPU's list on hrtimer interrupt.
> 
> Does this depend on your timekeeping rework posted in that v6 thread?
> If so, I would have expected to see that as part of these patches, if
> not, I'm confused, because part of the problem was that we currently
> need to update times for events we don't want to schedule etc..
> 
>> Events allocated for the same CPU are still kept in a linked list
>> of the event directly attached to the tree because it is unclear 
>> how to implement fast iteration thru events allocated for 
>> the same CPU when they are all attached to a tree employing 
>> additional 64bit index as a secondary treee key.
> 
> Finding the CPU subtree and rb_next() wasn't good?

I eventually managed to overcome difficulties with implementation
of rb_tree indexed by {cpu,index} for event groups so please 
see patches v9.

> 
> 
>