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

[Stephane Eranian]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:08:41PM +0000, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> I looked into this some more this morning. I don't think your proposed
>> scheme can work.
>> Unless, I misunderstood you, you were suggesting that we could perhaps
>> use a lazy
>> approach in perf_event_task_tick() and walk the event list only when
>> we have, at least, Âone
>> event to unthrottle, i.e., similar to what is done with nr_freq. That
>> cannot work. The problem is
>> that you'd let all events get throttled before you'd unthrottle them
>> in the next timer tick.
>> At each overflow, hwc->interrupt would get incremented until it
>> reached MAX_INTERRUPTS.
>> Then, the event would be stopped (throttled), you'd do
>> ctx->nr_throttled = 1. At the next
>> timer tick, perf_event_task_tick() would then unthrottle the event. In
>> that scheme, the
>> event would be throttled for at most a tick. But in fact, the event
>> never generated that
>> many overflows/tick to justify throttling.
>>
>> I think there is no other way than what I suggested in my initial email:
>> Â 1- revert the nr_freq optimization
>> Â 2- reset hwc->interrupt on all events at each tick
>>
> I think my original patch did that: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/15/114
>
Yes, looks like it, because it is systematically calling perf_ctx_adjust_freq()
which does reset the hwc->interrupts counter on ALL events.

But the pmu_disabled trick is not very pretty. We have to find some
middle ground
solution here.
--
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/