Re: perf_events: proposed fix for broken intr throttling (repost)

[Stephane Eranian]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 21:33 +0000, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> > I don't think it needs that, I do dislike the unconditional iterate all
>> > events thing though. Maybe we can set some per-cpu state indicating
>> > someone got throttled (rare under normal operation -- you'd hope) and
>> > only iterate to unthrottle when we find this set.
>> >
>> Could try that too.
>>
>> > I think the event scheduling resulting from migration will already
>> > re-enable the event, avoiding the loss of unthrottle due to that..
>> > although it would be good to verify that.
>> >
>> Yes, you're not dead forever, but still it is not acceptable as is.
>
> Oh for sure, I didn't mean it like that. What I was getting at is a
> counter getting throttled on one cpu, setting the per-cpu variable,
> getting migrated and not getting unthrottled due to now living on
> another cpu which doesn't have the per-cpu thing set.
>
Yes, that is true.
I think that throttled counter needs to live in ctx and not per-cpu.
--
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/