lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] libperf: Propagate maps only if necessary
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 4:46 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:54 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 27/09/22 20:28, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Adrian,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:06 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 24/09/22 19:57, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > >>> The current code propagate evsel's cpu map settings to evlist when it's
> > >>> added to an evlist. But the evlist->all_cpus and each evsel's cpus will
> > >>> be updated in perf_evlist__set_maps() later. No need to do it before
> > >>> evlist's cpus are set actually.
> > >>>
> > >>> Actually we discarded this intermediate all_cpus maps at the beginning
> > >>> of perf_evlist__set_maps(). Let's not do this. It's only needed when
> > >>> an evsel is added after the evlist cpu maps are set.
> > >>
> > >> That might not be true. Consider evlist__fix_hybrid_cpus() which fiddles
> > >> with evsel->core.cpus and evsel->core.own_cpus after the evsel has been
> > >> added to the evlist. It can also remove an evsel from the evlist.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your review. I think it's fine to change evsel cpus or to remove
> > > an evsel from evlist before calling evlist__create_maps(). The function
> > > will take care of setting evlist's all_cpus from the evsels in the evlist.
> > > So previous changes in evsel/cpus wouldn't be any special.
> > >
> > > After this point, adding a new evsel needs to update evlist all cpus by
> > > propagating cpu maps. So I think hybrid cpus should be fine.
> > > Did I miss something?
> >
> > I wondered how it might play out if evlist__fix_hybrid_cpus() reduced the
> > cpus from the target->cpu_list (using perf record -C) , since after this
> > patch all_cpus always starts with the target->cpu_list instead of an empty
> > list. But then, in the hybrid case, it puts a dummy event that uses the
> > target cpu list anyway, so the result is the same.
> >
> > I don't know if there are any cases where all_cpus would actually need to
> > exclude some of the cpus from target->cpu_list.
>
> I'm not aware of other cases to reduce cpu list. I think it'd be fine
> if it has a cpu in the evlist->all_cpus even if it's not used. The evsel
> should have a correct list anyway and we mostly use the evsel cpus
> to do the real work.
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung

The affinity changes made it so that we use all_cpus probably more
often than the evsel CPU maps for real work. The reason being we want
to avoid IPIs so we do all the work on 1 CPU and then move to the next
CPU in evlist all_cpus. evsel CPU maps are used to make sure the
indices are kept accurate - for example, if an uncore event is
measured with a CPU event:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/evlist.h?h=perf/core#n366
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/evlist.c?h=perf/core#n404

Thanks,
Ian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-29 04:08    [W:0.096 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site