Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf: use hrtimer for event multiplexing

[Stephane Eranian]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 16:29 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> @@ -148,6 +148,15 @@ static LIST_HEAD(pmus);
>>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(pmus_lock);
>>  static struct srcu_struct pmus_srcu;
>>
>> +struct perf_cpu_hrtimer {
>> +       struct hrtimer hrtimer;
>> +       int active;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct list_head, rotation_list);
>> +
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct perf_cpu_hrtimer, perf_cpu_hrtimer);
>
>
> How about sticking the hrtimer in perf_cpu_context so you can have a
> different rotation interval per PMU ?
>
I think having different intervals would be a good thing, especially for uncore.
But now, I am wondering how this could work without too much overhead.
Looks like you're suggesting arming multiple hrtimers if multiple PMU are
overcommitted. Is that right? As opposed to having a PMU multiplier off of a
single per-cpu hrtimer.

> Sorta like e9d2b064149ff7ef4acbc65a1b9374ac8b218d3e removed. Stopping
> the timer when the PMU isn't over committed should solve the NOHZ
> problem I think.

Yeah, my patch does solve this. That's what I show in my example in the intro
msg.
--
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/