lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 3/4] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all counters
From
Date
On 04/11/15 18:28, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:05:25PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> Adds helper routines to manipulate the counter controls for
>> all the counters on the CCI PMU.
>>
>> pmu_disable_counters_ctrl: Iterates over the counters,
>> checking the status of each counter and disabling any enabled
>> counters. For each such changed counter, the mask is updated so that
>> one can restore the state later using pmu_enable_counters_ctrl.
>>

>> /*
>> + * Restore the status of the counters.
>> + * For each counter set in the mask, enable the counter back.
>> + */
>> +static void pmu_restore_counters_ctrl(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(i, mask, cci_pmu->num_cntrs)
>> + pmu_enable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * For all counters on the CCI-PMU, disable any 'enabled' counters,
>> + * saving the changed counters in the mask, so that we can restore
>> + * it later using pmu_restore_counters_ctrl.
>> + */
>> +static void pmu_disable_counters_ctrl(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < cci_pmu->num_cntrs; i++) {
>> + clear_bit(i, mask);
>> + if (pmu_get_counter_ctrl(cci_pmu, i)) {
>> + set_bit(i, mask);
>> + pmu_disable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
>> + }
>> + }
>> +}
>
> I don't understand what's going on with the mask here. Why do we clear
> ieach bit when the only user (introduced in the next patch) explicitly
> clears the mask anyway?

To be more precise, it should have been :

if (pmu_get_counter_ctrl(cci_pmu, i)) {
set_bit(i, mask);
pmu_disable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
} else
clear_bit(i, mask);

>
> Can we not get rid of the mask entirely? The combination of used_mask
> and each event's hwc->state tells us which counters are actually in use.

The problem is that neither hwc->state nor the cci_pmu->hw_events->events is
protected by pmu_lock, while enable/disable counter is. So we cannot really
rely on ((struct perf_event *)(cci_pmu->hw_events->events[counter]))->hw->state.

What we do above is, create a mask of the counters which are enabled at the
moment and disable all of them. We then program the counter and then re-enable
those which were enabled (as marked in the mask).

Suzuki


>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-05 11:41    [W:0.131 / U:1.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site