DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=v2QXmhlkzb2PapeBXX7dGpXOq8YbLK6RFE+jkpsAzZkxuntP4pi7bVu0YOAAhby2Za
         VGkGRVqaroJ1UlTWBHj5E3+lJCgYpxjbttbpxf8OjjXtTZ9hGmfQqWQYQsgGEmAAubto
         139/bbQWCJn0hqbG/CTbrF+IahJyzRaeDB4v8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20091005094849.GA10620@elte.hu>
References: <20090925122556.2f8bd939@infradead.org>
	 <20090926183246.GA4141@in.ibm.com>
	 <20090926204848.0b2b48d2@infradead.org>
	 <20091001072518.GA1502@elte.hu> <20091001081616.GA3636@in.ibm.com>
	 <20091001085330.GC15345@elte.hu> <1254729210.26976.15.camel@twins>
	 <20091005085551.GA31147@elte.hu>
	 <c62985530910050224u5e755808jc2a25c3dd5c172da@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20091005094849.GA10620@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:08:55 +0200
Message-ID: <c62985530910050308m67ae892fx61c9fb6a2793e54f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf_core: provide a kernel-internal interface to get 
	to performance counters
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Weisbecker?= <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       "K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2463
Lines: 56

Le 5 octobre 2009 11:48, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> a ?crit :
>
> * Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/10/5 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
>> >
>> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> >> Non-trivial.
>> >>
>> >> Something like this would imply a single output channel for all these
>> >> CPUs, and we've already seen that stuffing too many CPUs down one such
>> >> channel (using -M) leads to significant performance issues.
>> >
>> > We could add internal per cpu buffering before it hits any globally
>> > visible output channel. (That has come up when i talked to Frederic
>> > about the function tracer.) We could even have page sized output
>> > (via the introduction of a NOP event that fills up to the next page
>> > edge).
>>
>> That looks good for the counting/sampling fast path, but would that
>> scale once it comes to reordering in the globally visible output
>> channel? Such a union has its costs.
>
> Well, reordering always has a cost, and we have multiple models
> regarding to where to put that cost.
>
> The first model is 'everything is per cpu' - i.e. completely separate
> event buffers and the reordering is pushed to the user-space
> post-processing stage. This is the most scalable solution - but it can
> also lose information such as the true ordering of events.
>
> The second model is 'event multiplexing' - here we use a single output
> buffer for events. This serializes all output on the same buffer and
> hence is the least scalable one. It is the easiest to use one: just a
> single channel of output to deal with. It is also the most precise
> solution and it saves the post-processing stage from reordering hassles.
>
> What i suggested above is a third model: 'short-term per cpu,
> multiplexed into an output channel with page granularity'. It has the
> advantage of being per cpu on a page granular basis. It has the ease of
> use of having a single output channel only.
>
> Neither solution can eliminate the costs and tradeoffs involved. What
> they do is to offer an app a spectrum to choose from.
>
> ? ? ? ?Ingo
>

Ok. The third solution solves the multi-channel problem, and for the
ordering...well
as you said, everything has a cost.
--
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/