On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:15:17PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:34:14PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Modify static constraint with current dynamic
> >> + * state of thread
> >> + *
> >> + * EXCLUSIVE: sibling counter measuring exclusive event
> >> + * SHARED : sibling counter measuring non-exclusive event
> >> + * UNUSED : sibling counter unused
> >> + */
> >> + for_each_set_bit(i, cx->idxmsk, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * exclusive event in sibling counter
> >> + * our corresponding counter cannot be used
> >> + * regardless of our event
> >> + */
> >> + if (xl->state[i] == INTEL_EXCL_EXCLUSIVE)
> >> + __clear_bit(i, cx->idxmsk);
> >> + /*
> >> + * if measuring an exclusive event, sibling
> >> + * measuring non-exclusive, then counter cannot
> >> + * be used
> >> + */
> >> + if (is_excl && xl->state[i] == INTEL_EXCL_SHARED)
> >> + __clear_bit(i, cx->idxmsk);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * recompute actual bit weight for scheduling algorithm
> >> + */
> >> + cx->weight = hweight64(cx->idxmsk64);
> >
> > So I think we talked about this a bit; what happens if CPU0 (taking your
> > 4 core HSW-client) is first to program its counters and takes all 4 in
> > exclusive mode?
> >
> > Then there's none left for CPU4.
> >
> > Did I miss where we avoid that problem, or is that an actual issue?
>
> Yes, this patch series does not address this problem yet. It will be
> in a second series.
> Don't have a good solution yet.We could limit each cpu to num_counters/2 exclusive slots. That'll still be painful with some constrained events I imagine, but in general that should 'work' I suppose.
pgp74mT4R_EIg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
