> So, I see that event_sched_out() function (4.11.0-rc6+) additionally to
> disabling an active (PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE) event in HW also performs
> updates of tstamp fields for inactive (PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE) events
> assigned to "the other" cpus (different from the one that is executing the
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 14:53:48 +0300
From: Alexey Budankov
Organization: Intel Corp.
To: davi...@google.com
CC: alexey.budan...@linux.intel.com
On 02.05.2017 23:59, Budankov, Alexey wrote:
Subject
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Budankov, Alexey
wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I would like to take over on the patches development relying on your help
> with reviews.
Sounds good.
> Could you provide me with the cumulative patch set to expedite the ramp up?
This RFC is my latest version. I did not
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:54:36AM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
> Yes, seems like it would benefit from the rb-tree optimization.
> If you guys want to work on it, I'll be happy to help review.
Likewise.
I'd very much appreciate being Cc'd on changes in this area.
Thanks,
Mark.
; Paul Turner
; Stephane Eranian
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree
>
> If I disable traversing in the per-process case then the overhead disappears.
>
> For the system-wide case the ctx->pinned_groups and ctx->flexible_groups
> lists are parts of per
>
> If I disable traversing in the per-process case then the overhead disappears.
>
> For the system-wide case the ctx->pinned_groups and ctx->flexible_groups
> lists are parts of per-cpu perf_cpu_context object and count of iterations is
> small (#events == 29).
Yes, seems like it would benefi
.@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 8:49 PM
To: Liang, Kan
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; x...@kernel.org; Ingo Molnar
; Thomas Gleixner ; Andi Kleen
; Peter Zijlstra ; Borislav Petkov
; Srinivas Pandruvada ; Dave
Hansen ; Vikas Shivappa
; Mark Rutland ; Arnaldo
Carvalho de Melo ;
Hi Kan,
It's still on my list, but I won't have time to work on it for at
least another month.
What issues did you encounter?
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Is there any update about the patch series?
>
> We recently encountered another perfor
Hi David,
Is there any update about the patch series?
We recently encountered another performance issue on KNL. I think the RB-tree
solution also has benefits for it.
Thanks,
Kan
> Subject: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree
>
> Following the discussion in:
> https://patchwork.kernel.
9 matches
Mail list logo