lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 3/4] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all counters
> >>+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.

They must be protected somehow, or we'd have races against cross-calls
and/or the interrupt handler.

Are we protected due to being cpu-affine with interrupts disabled when
modifying these, is there some other mechanism that protects us, or do
we have additional problems here?

Thanks,
Mark.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-05 19:01    [W:0.181 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site