[RFC PATCH 4/4] perf/core: Schedule every pinned events before the the non-pinned

From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Sun Nov 08 2009 - 15:13:56 EST


Currently, the order to schedule events is as follows:

- cpu context pinned events
- cpu context non-pinned events
- task context pinned events
- task context non-pinned events

What we want instead is to schedule every pinned events first because
those have a higher priority.

This is what does this patch in each task tick. If the approach is
agreed, we may want to expand this to task-only sched in (where the
cpu events are not sched out), fork, exec, etc... So that we guarantee
the pinned priority every time the task is scheduled in.

Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/perf_event.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
index 50f2997..f32aec4 100644
--- a/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -1327,6 +1327,41 @@ __perf_event_sched_in(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
spin_unlock(&ctx->lock);
}

+static void
+__perf_event_sched_in_all(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
+ struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx, int cpu)
+{
+ struct perf_event_context *cpu_ctx = &cpuctx->ctx;
+
+ /* May require different classes between cpu and task lock */
+ spin_lock(&cpu_ctx->lock);
+ spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
+ cpu_ctx->is_active = ctx->is_active = 1;
+
+ ctx->timestamp = cpu_ctx->timestamp = perf_clock();
+
+ perf_disable();
+
+ if (cpu_ctx->nr_events)
+ __perf_event_sched_in_pinned(cpu_ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
+
+ if (ctx->nr_events)
+ __perf_event_sched_in_pinned(cpu_ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
+
+ if (cpu_ctx->nr_events)
+ __perf_event_sched_in_volatile(cpu_ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
+
+ if (ctx->nr_events)
+ __perf_event_sched_in_volatile(cpu_ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
+
+ cpuctx->task_ctx = ctx;
+
+ perf_enable();
+
+ spin_unlock(&ctx->lock);
+ spin_lock(&cpu_ctx->lock);
+}
+
/*
* Called from scheduler to add the events of the current task
* with interrupts disabled.
@@ -1477,6 +1512,16 @@ static void rotate_ctx(struct perf_event_context *ctx)
spin_unlock(&ctx->lock);
}

+static void
+perf_event_sched_in_all(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
+ struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx, int cpu)
+{
+ if (!ctx || ctx == cpuctx->task_ctx)
+ perf_event_cpu_sched_in(cpuctx, cpu);
+ else
+ __perf_event_sched_in_all(ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
+}
+
void perf_event_task_tick(struct task_struct *curr, int cpu)
{
struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
@@ -1500,9 +1545,7 @@ void perf_event_task_tick(struct task_struct *curr, int cpu)
if (ctx)
rotate_ctx(ctx);

- perf_event_cpu_sched_in(cpuctx, cpu);
- if (ctx)
- perf_event_task_sched_in(curr, cpu);
+ perf_event_sched_in_all(ctx, cpuctx, cpu);
}

static void __perf_event_enable_on_exec(struct perf_event *event,
--
1.6.2.3

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/