[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: perf, x86: Fix PEBS enable/disable vs cpuc->enabled

This commit:

commit 4807e3d5dc7bb7057dd6ca3abb09f3da2eb8c323
Author: Peter Zijlstra <>
Date: Sat Mar 6 13:47:07 2010 +0100

perf, x86: Fix PEBS enable/disable vs cpuc->enabled

We should never call ->enable with the pmu enabled, and we _can_ have
->disable called with the pmu enabled.

introduced a new warning that's triggering on one of my test machines when I tried
counter multiplexing (more events than number of general purpose counters):

perf stat -e cycles,instructions,cache-misses,cache-misses,cache-misses,cache-misses,branch-misses -a -- sleep 10

The trace looks as follows:

WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c:499 intel_pmu_enable_event+0x18f/0x2bc()
Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 2.6.38-00029-g0d3bcb8 #12
Call Trace:
<IRQ> [<ffffffff8103c810>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0x98
[<ffffffff8103c83d>] ? warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x17
[<ffffffff8100f3cb>] ? intel_pmu_enable_event+0x18f/0x2bc
[<ffffffff8100f939>] ? x86_pmu_start+0xf7/0x108
[<ffffffff8109dd33>] ? perf_adjust_period+0x141/0x15c
[<ffffffff810a44ce>] ? perf_ctx_adjust_freq+0xd2/0x10a
[<ffffffff810a45f0>] ? perf_event_task_tick+0xea/0x1f0
[<ffffffff810389e9>] ? scheduler_tick+0xc8/0x258
[<ffffffff8104920f>] ? update_process_times+0x62/0x72
[<ffffffff810628bd>] ? tick_nohz_handler+0x8d/0xd6
[<ffffffff8101bfbc>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x83/0x96
[<ffffffff81003253>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20
<EOI> [<ffffffff81209eb5>] ? intel_idle+0xc3/0xe9
[<ffffffff81209e98>] ? intel_idle+0xa6/0xe9
[<ffffffff81375a12>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0x112/0x1b8
[<ffffffff81001c15>] ? cpu_idle+0x5a/0x91
[<ffffffff8143168b>] ? start_secondary+0x180/0x184
---[ end trace 0717acdc46c926b2 ]---

This was 2.6.38 + a few perf patches from the x86 tip. I believe stock 2.6.38 will behave similarly.

static void x86_pmu_start(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
if (flags & PERF_EF_RELOAD) {
WARN_ON_ONCE(!(event->hw.state & PERF_HES_UPTODATE));
// missing return here?

I wonder if the code should return for the PERF_EF_RELOAD case, rather than falling through.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-17 18:55    [W:0.029 / U:2.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site