Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2017-01-03 Thread David Carrillo-Cisneros
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:18:27PM -0800, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:20 PM, David Carrillo-Cisneros >> wrote: >> > From: Mark Rutland >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 05:26:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2017-01-03 Thread Mark Rutland
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:18:27PM -0800, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:20 PM, David Carrillo-Cisneros > wrote: > > From: Mark Rutland > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 05:26:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 02:10:37PM +, Mark Rutland w

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2017-01-01 Thread David Carrillo-Cisneros
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:20 PM, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote: > From: Mark Rutland > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 05:26:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 02:10:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: >> >> > Sure, that sounds fine for scheduling (including big.LITTLE). >> > >> >

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Mark Rutland
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 05:26:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 02:10:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > Sure, that sounds fine for scheduling (including big.LITTLE). > > > > I might still be misunderstanding something, but I don't think that > > helps Kan's case: sin

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 02:10:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > Sure, that sounds fine for scheduling (including big.LITTLE). > > I might still be misunderstanding something, but I don't think that > helps Kan's case: since INACTIVE events which will fail their filters > (including the CPU check)

RE: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Liang, Kan
> > I don't think those need be tracked at all, they're immaterial for > > actual scheduling. Once we ioctl() them back to life we can insert > > them into the tree. > > Sure, that sounds fine for scheduling (including big.LITTLE). > > I might still be misunderstanding something, but I don't th

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Mark Rutland
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:58:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:26:18PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:12:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Ah, so the tree would in fact only contain 'INACTIVE' events :-) > > > > Ah. :) > > > > That

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:26:18PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:12:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ah, so the tree would in fact only contain 'INACTIVE' events :-) > > Ah. :) > > That explains some of the magic, but... > > > That is, when no events are on the ha

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Mark Rutland
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:12:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:04:23PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:37:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So the problem is finding which events are active when. > > > If we stick all events in an RB

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:04:23PM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:37:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So the problem is finding which events are active when. > > Sure. > > If we only care about PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE, then I think we can > fairly easily maintain a

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Mark Rutland
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:37:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:05:17AM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:33:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Yes this is a problem, but no this cannot be done. We can't have per-cpu > > > storage per task.

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:05:17AM +, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:33:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Yes this is a problem, but no this cannot be done. We can't have per-cpu > > storage per task. That rapidly explodes. > > > > Mark is looking at replacing th

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Mark Rutland
Hi, On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 09:33:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Yes this is a problem, but no this cannot be done. We can't have per-cpu > storage per task. That rapidly explodes. > > Mark is looking at replacing this stuff with an rb-tree for big-little, > that would also allow improving t

Re: [PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
Yes this is a problem, but no this cannot be done. We can't have per-cpu storage per task. That rapidly explodes. Mark is looking at replacing this stuff with an rb-tree for big-little, that would also allow improving this I think.

[PATCH] perf/core: introduce context per CPU event list

2016-11-09 Thread kan . liang
From: Kan Liang The perf per-process monitoring overhead increases rapidly with the increasing of events# and CPU#. Here is some data from the overhead test on Skylake server which has 64 logical CPU. Elapsed time of AIM7 is used to measure the overhead. perf record -e $event_list -p $pi