On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 21:03 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> Ok, I missed that. But I don't understand why you need the lock to
> >> udpate the time. The lower-level clock is lockless if I recall. Can't you
> >> use an atomic ops in update_context_time()?
> >
> > atomic ops would slow down those code paths, also, I don't think you can
> > fully get the ordering between ->tstamp_$foo and ->total_time_$foo just
> > right.
> >
>
> I don't get that. Could you give an example?
Take update_context_time(), it has:
now = perf_clock();
ctx->time += now - ctx->timestamp;
ctx->timestamp = now;
If you interleave two of those you get:
ctx->timestamp = T0;
now = perf_clock(); /* T1 */
ctx->time += now - ctx->timestamp;
now = perf_clock(); /* T2 */
ctx->time += now - ctx->timestamp;
ctx->timestamp = now;
ctx->timestamp = now;
So at this point you would expect timestamp = T2 and time += T2-T0.
Except that: time += T1 - T0 + T2 - T0 != T2 - T0 and
timestamp = T1
You can of course write it as something like x86_perf_event_update(),
but then there's trying to keep total_time_running and
total_time_enabled in sync.
> > Not sure, but barring 64bit atomics for all these, 32bit archs and NMI
> > are going to be 'interesting'
> >
>
> Every sample needs to be correct, otherwise you run the risk of introducing
> bias.
>
> I think if the tradeoffs is correctness vs. speed, I'd choose correctness.
Well, yes, but it sucks, esp. since its only relevant to
PERF_SAMPLE_READ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download new Adobe(R) Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4
The new Adobe(R) Flex(R) 4 and Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4 (formerly
Flex(R) Builder(TM)) enable the development of rich applications that run
across multiple browsers and platforms. Download your free trials today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
perfmon2-devel mailing list
perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
