Re: [BUG] perf stat: explicit grouping yields unexpected results

[Stephane Eranian]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Vince Weaver <vince@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> Btw., does the kernel side currently support discovery of such
>> impossible group scheduling constraints at group setup time? If not
>> then it probably should and it should reject them straight away.
>
> It does not, or at least I'm pretty sure it can't if the NMI watchdog is
> enabled (Stephane, are you doing your tests with NMI watchdog disabled?)
>
I think my tests were with watchdog disabled.

> This is a big problem with PAPI.  If the NMI watchdog is enabled you can't
> tell if a group will fail until the first read, the kernel can't tell you
> at setup time.
>
Unless, you build the group and measure in for a short bit of time to validate
runtime execution. But then there is no guarantee either. Because the
perf_events
situation may change, e.g., you may get another pinned event. So I don't think
you will ever get that guarantee at setup time. I goes back to the core design
idea behind perf_events.
--
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/