Re: perf: odd event scheduling issue

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 06:08:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -2062,6 +2081,22 @@ intel_get_excl_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, struct perf_event *event,
>  	 */
>  
>  	/*
> +	 * Do not allow scheduling of more than max_alloc_cntrs
> +	 * which is set to half the available generic counters.
> +	 *
> +	 * This helps avoid counter starvation of sibling thread
> +	 * by ensuring at most half the counters cannot be in
> +	 * exclusive mode. There is not designated counters for the
> +	 * limits. Any N/2 counters can be used. This helps with
> +	 * events with specifix counter constraints
> +	 */
> +	if (xl->num_alloc_cntrs++ >= xl->max_alloc_cntrs) {
> +		/* wipe the GP counters */
> +		cx->idxmsk64 &= ~((1ULL << INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED) - 1);
> +		goto done;
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
>  	 * Modify static constraint with current dynamic
>  	 * state of thread
>  	 *

While this improves things, its still sub optimal because we should only
increase num_alloc_cntrs when we actually allocate a GP register, but we
do that at commit time and that callback is too late to back out / retry.

So ideally we'd move the callback into scheduling code, but that means
we also have to move the xlo array into the sched_state etc.

[ which brings me to the whole xl vs xlo thing, I think we done that the
  wrong way around. It would be more natural to account to xl and create
  constraints based on xlo. ]

Secondly, we should only enforce this limit if and when there are
exclusive events on the system I suppose.

I have some ideas on how to go do this, but I need a break..

--
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/