Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: I6tvaO1szkz/GXnNCmND6EnzE/ZfZ5HYflKFk7ETEy2vQ9l9xaRQ2htxxX2DMefJQMlPMLL6xe
 UcbMu4KoaqDA==
IronPort-SDR: 7XYA97HlNl4tMaJ3/eXsZlzsLztgnXXxYypIuVBtjHh4owLf4H38/u5g55MQujnzTG5vk8GpqF
 nE9yq4yNsa5g==
Date:   Sun, 1 Nov 2020 19:52:38 -0800
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, mingo@kernel.org,
        acme@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eranian@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] perf: Fix perf_event_attr::exclusive rotation
Message-ID: <20201102035238.GI466880@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <20201029162719.519685265@infradead.org>
 <20201031234418.GE3380099@krava>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201031234418.GE3380099@krava>
Precedence: bulk

> hm, it's too late for me to check ;-) but should I be able to do
> this with exclusive event.. running both command at the same time:

Yes. The exclusive part only applies during a given context,
but the two commands are different contexts.

You would only see a difference when in the same context,
and you have multiple groups (or events) that could in theory schedule
in parallel

e.g. something like

perf stat -e '{cycles,cycles},{cycles,cycles}'  ...

The main motivation is actually that the "multiple groups" algorithm
in perf doesn't work all that great: it has quite a few cases where it
starves groups or makes the wrong decisions. That is because it is very
difficult (likely NP complete) problem and the kernel takes a lot
of short cuts to avoid spending too much time on it.

With exclusive it will be possible for a tool to generate "perfect groups"
in user space and assume the kernel schedules it dumbly, but at least
without any starvation.

-Andi