On 10-Oct-22 3:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:20:53AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
>> This one was simple enough so I prepared a patch for this. Let
>> me know if you see any issues with below diff.
>
> I've extraed this as a separate patch since it's not strictly
On 10-Oct-22 3:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 04:58:49PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>>> -static void
>>> -ctx_flexible_sched_in(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
>>> - struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx)
>>> +/* XXX .busy thingy from Peter's patch */
>>> +static
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:20:53AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> This one was simple enough so I prepared a patch for this. Let
> me know if you see any issues with below diff.
I've extraed this as a separate patch since it's not strictly required
for correctness and the patch is a quite large
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 04:58:49PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> > -static void
> > -ctx_flexible_sched_in(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> > - struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx)
> > +/* XXX .busy thingy from Peter's patch */
> > +static void ctx_flexible_sched_in(struct
> -static void
> -ctx_flexible_sched_in(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> - struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx)
> +/* XXX .busy thingy from Peter's patch */
> +static void ctx_flexible_sched_in(struct perf_event_context *ctx, struct pmu
> *pmu)
This one turned out to be very easy.
> @@ -9752,10 +9889,13 @@ void perf_tp_event(u16 event_type, u64 count, void
> *record, int entry_size,
> struct trace_entry *entry = record;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> - ctx = rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[perf_sw_context]);
> + ctx =
> So the basic issue I mentioned is that:
>
>
> /*
> * ,[1:n]-.
> * V V
> * perf_event_context <-[1:n]-> perf_event_pmu_context <--- perf_event
> * ^
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:05:53PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> On 29-Aug-22 8:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 02:04:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 05:03:47PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> >>> @@ -12598,6 +12590,7 @@
> >>>
On 29-Aug-22 8:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 02:04:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 05:03:47PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>>> @@ -12598,6 +12590,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_event_create_kernel_counter);
>>>
>>> void
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 02:04:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 05:03:47PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> > @@ -12598,6 +12590,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_event_create_kernel_counter);
> >
> > void perf_pmu_migrate_context(struct pmu *pmu, int src_cpu, int dst_cpu)
> >
From: Peter Zijlstra
There have been various issues and limitations with the way perf uses
(task) contexts to track events. Most notable is the single hardware
PMU task context, which has resulted in a number of yucky things (both
proposed and merged).
Notably:
- HW breakpoint PMU
- ARM
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 05:03:47PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> @@ -12598,6 +12590,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_event_create_kernel_counter);
>
> void perf_pmu_migrate_context(struct pmu *pmu, int src_cpu, int dst_cpu)
> {
> +#if 0 // XXX buggered - cpu hotplug, who cares
> struct
12 matches
Mail list logo
