Re: [PATCH 03/10] perf/x86: Correct local vs remote sibling state

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 06:31:25AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > For some obscure reason the current code accounts the current SMT
> > thread's state on the remote thread and reads the remote's state on
> > the local SMT thread.
> >
> > While internally consistent, and 'correct' its pointless confusion we
> > can do without.
> >
> > Flip them the right way around.
> >
> So you are changing the logic here from:
> 
>   * EXCLUSIVE: sibling counter measuring exclusive event
>   * SHARED   : sibling counter measuring non-exclusive event
>   * UNUSED   : sibling counter unused
> 
> to:
> 
>    * EXCLUSIVE: current thread is using an exclusive event
>    * SHARED: current thread is using a non-exclusive event
>    * UNUSED: current thread is not using this counter
> 
> I am okay with this just need to make sure there were no
> assumptions made about that. I will look.

Right; and when we construct the constraint mask we look at the other
one too. So both on the update and the read side I flipped things
around.

And that is really the only thing that matters, that you look at the
other sibling's thread state when constructing that mask. And that's
kept invariant.
--
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/