Re: [patch 0/2] NOHZ vs. profile/oprofile v2

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:40:30 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:29:37 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:05:53 +0200
> > > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:41:10 +0200
> > > > > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hm, this is rather ugly. Why not use hrtimers like 'perf' does when 
> > > > > > > it fallback-samples based on the timer tick?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > That method has three advantages:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  - no weird hookery needed
> > > > > > >  - resolution can go far beyond HZ
> > > > > > >  - it is evidently dynticks-safe
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hmm, if we replace the HZ based oprofile tick with an hrtimer we 
> > > > > > should add an interface to configure the sample interval as well, 
> > > > > > no? Otherwise we just replace one timer event (HZ) with another 
> > > > > > (hrtimer).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Even if the hrtimer is set with a 1/HZ period it's a better 
> > > > > solution, as it's dynticks safe without invasive changes.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, but the patch will be quite big. All the profile_tick() calls 
> > > > from the architecture files will have to be removed. [...]
> > > 
> > > Hey, that's a bonus :)
> > 
> > It would remove some oddball code :-)
> >  
> > > > [...] And if we really want to keep things separate there will be 
> > > > two sets of per-cpu hrtimer, one for the old style profiler and 
> > > > one for oprofile. Any preference for the user space interface to 
> > > > set the sample rate? A sysctl?
> > > 
> > > I dont think we want to keep things separate. Regarding old-style 
> > > profiler, does anyone still use it? There's now a superior in-tree 
> > > replacement for it, so we could phase it out.
> > 
> > Well, for my part I won't miss it. But to be able to remove the 
> > profile_tick() calls from the architectures I either have to rip 
> > out the old profiler now, or adapt it to use hrtimer as well.
> 
> Do we _have to_ touch it so widely right now? We could start with a 
> deprecation warning in this cycle. Once it's deprecated we can 
> remove all those calls.

Hmm, I like that. Fix oprofile with hrtimer and leave profile_tick()
as it is for now.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
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/