Re: [PATCH 1/9] perf_counter: unify and fix delayed counter wakeup

[Paul Mackerras]

Peter Zijlstra writes:

> While going over the wakeup code I noticed delayed wakeups only work
> for hardware counters but basically all software counters rely on
> them.

Hmmm, I don't like the extra latency this introduces, particularly
since on powerpc we already have a good way to avoid the latency.

I did a grep for perf_swcounter_event calls that have nmi=1, and there
are a couple, to my surprise.  Why does the context switch one have
nmi=1?  It certainly isn't called from an actual NMI handler.  Is it
because of locking issues?

The other one is the tracepoint call in perf_tpcounter_event.  I
assume you have put nmi=1 there because you don't know what context
we're in.  That means we'll always delay the wakeup even when we might
be in an ordinary interrupt-on process context.  Couldn't we do
better?

Paul.
--
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/