lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tip:perf/core] perf: Ignore non-sampling overflows
On 29.06.11 06:50:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 12:37 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
>
> > I looked at the interrupt handlers. The events are always determined
> > from a per-cpu array:
> >
> > cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
> > ...
> > event = cpuc->events[idx];
> >
> > In case of interrupts the event should then always be a hw event (or
> > uninitialized). Even if the interrupt was triggered by a different
> > source, it would always be mapped to the same event and the check
> > is_sampling_event() would be meaningless.
>
> I'm probably not quite getting what you mean, but how is
> is_sampling_event() meaningless? the INT bit is enabled for _all_
> events, whether they were configured as a sampling event or not.

Aren't all events that are mapped to counters via cpu_hw_events always
sampling events? Then, when calling perf_event_overflow() from an
interrupt handler there are no other events than sampling events.

>
> Its just that for !sampling events we shouldn't attempt to generate any
> output.

If attr.sample_type is null, there is no output to generate. Better
use this instead of attr.sample_type in is_sampling_event()?
perf_event_overflow() could be used then to generate output also for
samples where no period is specified.

>
> > There are other occurrences of perf_event_overflow() in
> > kernel/events/core.c for events of type PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE. These
> > events are initialized with sample_period set and a check would always
> > be true too.
>
> I'm failing to see what you mean, where do we always set
> event->attr.sample_period for software events?

Hmm, I read the code wrong and the check in perf_event_overflow()
might be needed for swevents.

>
> > For both cases I stil don't see a reason for the check.
>
> You're going to have to spell things out for me, I'm really not getting
> your argument.

I was thinking about to change this check and haven't seen cases for
that the check is for. What would happen if the check isn't there and
perf_event_overflow() is called from the interrupt handler?

>
> > Anyway, would the following extentension of the check above ok?
> >
> > if (unlikely(!is_sampling_event(event) && !event->attr.sample_type))
> > ...
> >
> > With no bits set in attr.sample_type the sample would be empty and
> > nothing to report. Now, with this change, samples that have data to
> > report wouldn't be dropped anymore.
>
> Also, could you explain in what way data is dropped? Where do
> non-sampling events need to write sample data?

I stumbled over this while rebasing my perf ibs patches:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rric/oprofile.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/perf-ibs

Hope I could explain this to you better now.

-Robert

--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-29 16:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans