lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 3/8] ARCv2: perf: implement "event_set_period" for future use with interrupts
Date
Hi Peter,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@infradead.org]
> Sent: 18 августа 2015 г. 20:55
> To: Alexey Brodkin
> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com; arc-linux-dev@synopsys.com;
> arnd@arndb.de; Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] ARCv2: perf: implement "event_set_period" for future use with interrupts
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:13:29PM +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > +static int arc_pmu_event_set_period(struct perf_event *event)
> > +{
> > + struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> > + s64 left = local64_read(&hwc->period_left);
> > + s64 period = hwc->sample_period;
> > + int idx = hwc->idx;
> > + int overflow = 0;
> > + u64 value;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(left <= -period)) {
> > + /* left underflowed by more than period. */
> > + left = period;
> > + local64_set(&hwc->period_left, left);
> > + hwc->last_period = period;
> > + overflow = 1;
> > + } else if (unlikely(left <= 0)) {
> > + /* left underflowed by less than period. */
> > + left += period;
> > + local64_set(&hwc->period_left, left);
> > + hwc->last_period = period;
> > + overflow = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (left > arc_pmu->max_period) {
> > + left = arc_pmu->max_period;
> > + local64_set(&hwc->period_left, left);
>
> Given that you set counter_size to 32+bct_bcr.s << 4, I'm assuming these
> counters are not 64bit wide (or at least the hardware has the option of
> not being full width).

Indeed our counters could be 32/48(default)/64 bits wide.

> That means this local64_set() is wrong.

You mean the one used for setting "hwc->period_left"?

> The purpose here is to emulate a longer period with a short counter. So
> even though we have to take the interrupt to observe the counter width
> overflow and reprogram, we must not decrease the @left value.
>
> Doing so will trigger one of the above two cases and result in @overflow
> == 1, even though we've not actually had hwc->sample_period counts.

My understanding was that here we're just checking if for some reason in
arc_perf_event_update() we decremented "hwc->period_left" too much
and it became either just <0 or even <(0 - period). IMHO that may happen
if not in sampling even case (where we expect interrupt to happen close
to a period being crossed) but in case of non-sampling event IMHO that
is pretty possible if frequency of checking counter value is way too low.

-Alexey


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-20 13:41    [W:0.073 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site