On 2017/08/04 12:59PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:14:04PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > @@ -5974,19 +5976,8 @@ void perf_output_sample(struct perf_output_handle
> > *handle,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + if (!event->attr.count_sb_events)
> > + rb_handle_wakeup_events(event, handle->rb);
> > }
>
> > +void __always_inline
> > +rb_handle_wakeup_events(struct perf_event *event, struct ring_buffer *rb)
> > +{
> > + int wakeup_events = event->attr.wakeup_events;
> > +
> > + if (!event->attr.watermark && wakeup_events) {
> > + int events = local_inc_return(&rb->events);
> > +
> > + if (events >= wakeup_events) {
> > + local_sub(wakeup_events, &rb->events);
> > + local_inc(&rb->wakeup);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static int __always_inline
> > __perf_output_begin(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
> > struct perf_event *event, unsigned int size,
> > @@ -197,6 +212,9 @@ __perf_output_begin(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
> > * none of the data stores below can be lifted up by the compiler.
> > */
> >
> > + if (unlikely(event->attr.count_sb_events))
> > + rb_handle_wakeup_events(event, rb);
> > +
> > if (unlikely(head - local_read(&rb->wakeup) > rb->watermark))
> > local_add(rb->watermark, &rb->wakeup);
> >
>
> I'm still slightly uneasy over this.. Yes most of our events are
> samples, so we'd pay the overhead already. But could you still look at
> performance of this, see for example this commit:
>
> 9ecda41acb97 ("perf/core: Add ::write_backward attribute to perf event")
>
> we went through a lot of variants to not hurt performance.
Sure. I'll run the tests and get back.
Thanks,
Naveen
