Re: Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

> 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

Re: Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

> 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

Fwd: Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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 <alexey.budan...@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Corp. To: davi...@google.com CC: alexey.budan...@linux.intel.com On 02.05.2017

Fwd: Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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

Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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

Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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

Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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.

Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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.

RE: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

arvalho de Melo <a...@kernel.org>; Vince Weaver <vi...@deater.net>; Paul Turner <p...@google.com>; Stephane Eranian <eran...@google.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree > > If I disable traversing in the per-process case then the overhead d

RE: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

; 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

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-cpu perf_cpu_context object and count of iterations is > small (#events == 29). Yes, seems like it would

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-cpu perf_cpu_context object and count of iterations is > small (#events == 29). Yes, seems like it would

RE: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de>; Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruv...@linux.intel.com>; Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com>; Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shiva...@linux.intel.com>; Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>; Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@kernel.org&g

RE: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

ent: 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 ; Vince Weaver ;

Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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

Re: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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

RE: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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: >

RE: [RFC 0/6] optimize ctx switch with rb-tree

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: >