lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 4/4] perf/core: Schedule every pinned events before the the non-pinned
From
Date
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:13 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> +static void
> +__perf_event_sched_in_all(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx, int cpu)
> +{
> + struct perf_event_context *cpu_ctx = &cpuctx->ctx;
> +
> + /* May require different classes between cpu and task lock */
> + spin_lock(&cpu_ctx->lock);
> + spin_lock(&ctx->lock);

Would be good to know for sure, running with lockdep enabled ought to
tell you that pretty quick ;-)

> + cpu_ctx->is_active = ctx->is_active = 1;
> +
> + ctx->timestamp = cpu_ctx->timestamp = perf_clock();
> +
> + perf_disable();
> +
> + if (cpu_ctx->nr_events)
> + __perf_event_sched_in_pinned(cpu_ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
> +
> + if (ctx->nr_events)
> + __perf_event_sched_in_pinned(cpu_ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
> +
> + if (cpu_ctx->nr_events)
> + __perf_event_sched_in_volatile(cpu_ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
> +
> + if (ctx->nr_events)
> + __perf_event_sched_in_volatile(cpu_ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
> +
> + cpuctx->task_ctx = ctx;
> +
> + perf_enable();
> +
> + spin_unlock(&ctx->lock);
> + spin_lock(&cpu_ctx->lock);

I'm pretty sure that ought to be spin_unlock() ;-)

> +}


Like Ingo I don't really like the volatile name.

Can't we simply have 2 lists per cpu a pinned and normal list, and first
schedule all the pinned and RR the normal events?

I guess one could implement that by adding the task context events to
the cpu context events on sched_in and removing them on sched_out. That
would clear up a lot of funny scheduling details.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-10 11:13    [W:0.079 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site