Hi,
On 05.09.2017 14:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 01:17:39PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> However we can't completely get rid of whole tree iterations because of
>> inheritance code on forks in perf_event_init_context() here:
>
> Right, fork() / inherit needs to iterate
On 05.09.2017 19:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:06:26PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> [ 6614.226305] WARNING: CPU: 45 PID: 43385 at kernel/events/core.c:239
>> event_function+0xb3/0xe0
>
> I think I avoided that problem by not radically rewriting
> perf_event_read() but
On 05.09.2017 19:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:06:26PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> [ 6614.226305] WARNING: CPU: 45 PID: 43385 at kernel/events/core.c:239
>> event_function+0xb3/0xe0
>
> I think I avoided that problem by not radically rewriting
> perf_event_read() but
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:06:26PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> [ 6614.226305] WARNING: CPU: 45 PID: 43385 at kernel/events/core.c:239
> event_function+0xb3/0xe0
I think I avoided that problem by not radically rewriting
perf_event_read() but fixing it instead:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/sc
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:06:26PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> [ 6614.226305] WARNING: CPU: 45 PID: 43385 at kernel/events/core.c:239
> event_function+0xb3/0xe0
> [ 6614.226563] Call Trace:
> [ 6614.226577] remote_function+0x3b/0x50
> [ 6614.226585] generic_exec_single+0x9a/0xd0
> [ 6614.22
Hi,
On 05.09.2017 13:17, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> On 04.09.2017 18:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:56:06PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>> On 04.09.2017 15:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:46:45PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> So the below c
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 01:17:39PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> However we can't completely get rid of whole tree iterations because of
> inheritance code on forks in perf_event_init_context() here:
Right, fork() / inherit needs to iterate the full thing, nothing to be
done about that.
I'll g
On 04.09.2017 18:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:56:06PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> On 04.09.2017 15:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:46:45PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> So the below completely rewrites timekeeping (and probably breaks
>>
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:51:35AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> Esp the cgroup stuff is entirely untested since I simply don't know how
> >> to operate that. I did run Vince's tests on it, and I think it doesn't
> >> regress, but I'm near a migraine so I can't really see straight atm.
> >>
>
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:54:15AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>> On 22.08.2017 23:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:57:43PM +0300, Alexey Bud
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:41:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >> U - allocation, A - ACTIVE, I - INACTIVE, O - OFF,
> > >> E - ERROR, X - EXIT, D - DEAD,
> > >
> > > Not sure we care about the different <0 values, they're all effectively
> > > OFF.
> >
> > We still need to care about prop
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:56:06PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> On 04.09.2017 15:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:46:45PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> >>> So the below completely rewrites timekeeping (and probably breaks
> >>> world) but does away with the need to touc
On 04.09.2017 15:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:46:45PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>> So the below completely rewrites timekeeping (and probably breaks
>>> world) but does away with the need to touch events that don't get
>>> scheduled.
>>
>> We still need and do iterate
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 01:46:45PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> > So the below completely rewrites timekeeping (and probably breaks
> > world) but does away with the need to touch events that don't get
> > scheduled.
>
> We still need and do iterate thru all events at some points e.g. on contex
Hi,
On 31.08.2017 20:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:54:15AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> On 22.08.2017 23:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:57:43PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
The key thing in the patch is explicit updating of tstamp fields
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So the below completely rewrites timekeeping (and probably breaks
> world) but does away with the need to touch events that don't get
> scheduled.
>
> Esp the cgroup stuff is entirely untested since I simply don't know how
> to operate that. I did run
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 02:17:17PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> > No more weird and wonderful mind bending interaction between 3 different
> > timestamps with arcane update rules.
> >
> > ---
> > include/linux/perf_event.h | 25 +-
> > kernel/events/core.c | 551
> > ---
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:45:17PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> Well, this looks like an "opposite" approach to event timekeeping in
> comparison to what we currently have.
I would say 'sane' approach. The current thing is horrible.
> Do you want this rework before or after the current patch
On 31.08.2017 20:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:54:15AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> On 22.08.2017 23:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:57:43PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
The key thing in the patch is explicit updating of tstamp fields for
On 31.08.2017 20:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:54:15AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> On 22.08.2017 23:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:57:43PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
The key thing in the patch is explicit updating of tstamp fields for
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:54:15AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> On 22.08.2017 23:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:57:43PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>> >> The key thing in the patch is explicit updating
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:54:15AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> On 22.08.2017 23:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:57:43PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> >> The key thing in the patch is explicit updating of tstamp fields for
> >> INACTIVE events in update_event_times().
22 matches
Mail list logo