Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Jan 19 2010 - 11:35:54 EST
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 16:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Also, I see you set an ->unthrottle, but then don't implement it, but
> > comment it as todo, which is strange because that implies its broken. If
> > there's an ->unthrottle method it will throttle, so if its todo, the
> > safest thing is to not set it.
> Yeah, that's because I have a too vague idea on what is the purpose
> of the unthrottle() callback.
> I've read the concerned codes that call this, several times, and I still
> can't figure out what happens there, not sure what is meant by throttle
> or unthrottle there :-/
OK, so not setting it is relatively safe.
As to what it does, it has to undo everything you do when
perf_event_overflow() returns true, which happens when ->unthrottle is
set and we get more than sysctl_perf_event_sample_rate/HZ events in a
If you look at the x86 implementation, you'll see that we simply disable
the hardware counter when the overflow call returns true, so the
unthrottle() callback simply enables it again.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/