lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [tip:perf/urgent] perf, x86: Catch spurious interrupts after disabling counters
From
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com> wrote:
> On 29.09.10 10:00:54, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
>> > Here is another difference I noticed in x86_handle_irq() vs.
>> > intel_pmu_handle_irq().
>> > For Intel, handled is incremented even if there is no 64-bit overflow.
>> >
>> > With generic X86, it is incremented only when you have a 64-bit
>> > overflow. I think that's wrong. You don't hit that condition very often
>> > on AMD because counters are 47 bits wide, but this is generic code
>> > and on P6 you definitively will. I believe you need to hoist handled++
>> > just after the check on active_mask.
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> In other words, I think handled is there to track interrupts, i.e., hw
>> counter overflows, and not 64-bit software counter overflows (which
>> do trigger sample recording).
>
> Stephane, the code looks good. We must first read the counter msr, its
> raw value is returned by x86_perf_event_update(). Then we check we MSB
> of the *counter* value and if it is zero, we detected a counter
> overflow (not a 64 bit overflow) and increment 'handled'.
>
Yes, you are right. I double-checked that again Friday and the code is
okay for Intel, generic X86 and P4.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-03 23:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site