lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] perf_core: provide a kernel-internal interface to get to performance counters
    On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:25:18AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >
    > * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:02:46 +0530
    > > "K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:03:28PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
    > >
    > > > > For what it's worth, this sort of thing also looks useful from
    > > > > systemtap's point of view.
    > > >
    > > > Wouldn't SystemTap be another user that desires support for
    > > > multiple/all CPU perf-counters (apart from hw-breakpoints as a
    > > > potential user)? As Arjan pointed out, perf's present design would
    > > > support only a per-CPU or per-task counter; not both.
    > >
    > > I'm sorry but I think I am missing your point. "all cpu counters"
    > > would be one small helper wrapper away, a helper I'm sure the
    > > SystemTap people are happy to submit as part of their patch series
    > > when they submit SystemTap to the kernel.
    >
    > Yes, and Frederic wrote that wrapper already for the hw-breakpoints
    > patches. It's a non-issue and does not affect the design - we can always
    > gang up an array of per cpu perf events, it's a straightforward use of
    > the existing design.
    >

    Such a design (iteratively invoking a per-CPU perf event for all desired
    CPUs) isn't without issues, some of which are noted here:
    (apart from http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/14/298).

    - It breaks the abstraction that a user of the exported interfaces would
    enjoy w.r.t. having all CPU (or a cpumask of CPU) breakpoints.

    - (Un)Availability of debug registers on every requested CPU is not
    known until request for that CPU fails. A failed request should be
    followed by a rollback of the partially successful requests.

    - Any breakpoint exceptions generated due to partially successful
    requests (before a failed request is encountered) must be treated as
    'stray' and be ignored (by the end-user? or the wrapper code?).

    - Any CPUs that become online eventually have to be trapped and
    populated with the appropriate debug register value (not something
    that the end-user of breakpoints should be bothered with).

    - Modifying the characteristics of a kernel breakpoint (including the
    valid CPUs) will be equally painful.

    - Races between the requests (also leading to temporary failure of
    all CPU requests) presenting an unclear picture about free debug
    registers (making it difficult to predict the need for a retry).

    So we either have a perf event infrastructure that is cognisant of
    many/all CPU counters, or make perf as a user of hw-breakpoints layer
    which already handles such requests in a deft manner (through appropriate
    book-keeping).

    Thanks,
    K.Prasad



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-01 10:19    [W:2.732 / U:0.576 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site