On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:28:10PM +0000, Song Liu wrote: > > How about this: > > > > 1. Keep multiple perf_cpu_context per CPU, just like before this patch. > > > > 2. For perf_event_context, add PMU as an order for the RB tree. > > > > 3. (hw) pmu->perf_cpu_context->ctx only has events for this PMU (and sw > > events moved to this context). > > > > 4. task->perf_event_ctxp has events for all PMUs. > > > > With this path, we keep the existing perf_cpu_context/perf_event_context > > logic as-is, which I think is simpler than the new logic (with extra > > *_pmu_context). And it should also solve the problem. > > > > Does this make sense? If this doesn't look too broken, I am happy to > > draft RFC for it. > > > > I am not sure whether you missed this one, or found it totally insane. > Could you please share your comments on it? My gut feeling is that this > would be a simpler patch to solve the problem (two hw PMUs). (It might > be less efficient though).
Ah, sorry, somehow this email got lost. That makes task and cpu contexts wildly different, which will complicate matters I feel.
