lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] keep on ticking if oprofile is active
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 22:29:38 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 May 2009, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > On a NOHZ system with oprofile enabled the timer tick should not be
> > > stopped when a cpu goes idle. Oprofile needs the pt_regs structure
> > > of the interrupt and allocates memory in the ring buffer for each
> > > sample. Current a maximum of 1 tick is accounted with oprofile if a
> > > cpu sleeps for a longer period of time. This does bad things to the
> > > percentages in the oprofile output. To postpone the oprofile tick to
> > > tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick analog to the in kernel profiler is not
> > > possible as there is no pt_regs structure in the context the
> > > tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick function is called and it is not a good
> > > idea to create hundreds of samples at once.
> >
> > Sigh. That's stupid.
>
> What is stupid, the bug or the fix?

The bug :)

> > OTOH, thinking more about the patch itself it might be even useful
> > for things aside oprofile. Runtime switching from and to nohz mode
> > for debugging or evaluation purposes comes to my mind. That would
> > need some sysfs interface, but that's not too hard to do.
>
> That should be no problem. We used to have the hz_timer system control
> with the old no-tick solution on s390.
>
> > So yeah, I think we should satisfy oprofile needs and utilize it further.
>
> Ok, so you are in principle fine with the patch?

Yup.

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-29 15:17    [W:0.053 / U:2.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site