DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=qWMfMdFL44xV2VMbQiJqp3/osH57ozuHTiwUFV3Rb+a7LWPtLve3NipCAbttERYd+K
         XC6jFsv9L5FTfG4vogcN0tG7kj9Lw283gDhnhIKFsVgkLs7xxxZN0MGUSXmiI3v5JlVk
         PQCNFg+KVhtz6hZy95gXlYMoQ6d0pjW1XMzqY=
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:56:35 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] perf: Increase round-robin fairness of flexible
	events
Message-ID: <20100111015634.GG5039@nowhere>
References: <1263087500-14215-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1263087500-14215-7-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20100110220440.GA4595@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20100110235758.GC5039@nowhere> <20100111003905.GA6066@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100111003905.GA6066@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2249
Lines: 48

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:39:05AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:57:59AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > I think the constraint of "either every or none get
> > scheduled in a group" makes a lot of sense for pinned
> > groups.
> > 
> > But I don't see the point in applying this
> > rule inside flexible groups because the nature
> > of flexible events implies these have been created to
> > fight against a limited resource. So if this fight
> > is done only between groups, this is like raising
> > a voluntary starvation.
> > 
> > Or..or..May be I just realize too late that the semantic
> > of a group implies that all events inside must be always
> > counted simultaneously? In which case I agree with you,
> > this patch makes no sense and must be dropped.
> 
> The original idea of the groups was for situations where you want to
> take the difference or ratio of two counts.  For example, if you want
> to measure cache hits but the hardware can only count cache accesses
> and cache misses.  In that situation you want to compute accesses
> minus misses, but if the counters for accesses and for misses are
> independently scheduled, statistical fluctuations can mean there is a
> lot of noise in the result, and it might even be negative.  Putting
> the two counters into one group means that you can meaningfully
> compute the difference or ratio since the two counter values relate to
> the same set of instructions (even if that isn't the whole execution
> of the program).
> 
> The default situation is that each event is in its own group, so the
> starvation you talk about won't arise.  If the user has gone to the
> trouble of putting two events into one group, then they are saying
> that they need the events to be scheduled on and off together, and if
> that leads to starvation, that's unfortunate but we can't do any
> better within the limitations of the hardware.


Agreed. This patch came from my misunderstanding of the purpose of
groups.

--
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/