lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] perf: Check if we should exclude idle thread in perf_exclude_event()
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:20:12PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:54:07PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 01:13:43PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > Don't open code the event check for excluding the idle thread. Instead
> > > include the check in perf_exclude_event().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/perf_event.c | 8 +++++---
> > > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
> > > index 0d38f27..16b0476 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
> > > @@ -4310,6 +4310,9 @@ static int perf_exclude_event(struct perf_event *event,
> > >
> > > if (event->attr.exclude_kernel && !user_mode(regs))
> > > return 1;
> > > +
> > > + if (event->attr.exclude_idle && current->pid == 0)
> > > + return 1;
> >
> >
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > But one of the problems people have reported is that they can miss
> > interrupts samples if they happen in idle. Hence we have decided
> > that exclude_idle should exclude events that happen in idle process
> > context but not in interrupts interrupting idle.
> >
> > So adding an in_interrupt() check would perhaps be better.
> >
> > I plan to do this exclusion using the per context exclusion, which is
> > a patchset I have in queue. But until then, having this patch is better.
> >
> >
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -4512,9 +4515,8 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart perf_swevent_hrtimer(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
> > > regs = get_irq_regs();
> > >
> > > if (regs && !perf_exclude_event(event, regs)) {
> > > - if (!(event->attr.exclude_idle && current->pid == 0))
> > > - if (perf_event_overflow(event, 0, &data, regs))
> > > - ret = HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> > > + if (perf_event_overflow(event, 0, &data, regs))
> > > + ret = HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> >
> >
> >
> > But yeah if we add an in_interrupt() check in perf_exclude_event(), it
> > won't work here. This one needs to check if irqs are nesting :)
> >
> > Bah, checking we interrupted softirqs is probably enough. I guess we
> > don't care about nesting hardirqs.
>
> This patch isn't really worth it on its own, I only grouped the idle
> check into perf_exclude_event() because patch 3/5 introduced a new
> caller. As you've said, the semantics at the various callsites are
> quite complex. It's probably best to wait for your patchset :)


Ok :)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-31 17:23    [W:0.032 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site