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).
That means this local64_set() is wrong.
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.
> + }
> +
> + value = arc_pmu->max_period - left;
> + local64_set(&hwc->prev_count, value);
> +
> + /* Select counter */
> + write_aux_reg(ARC_REG_PCT_INDEX, idx);
> +
> + /* Write value */
> + write_aux_reg(ARC_REG_PCT_COUNTL, (u32)value);
> + write_aux_reg(ARC_REG_PCT_COUNTH, (value >> 32));
> +
> + perf_event_update_userpage(event);
> +
> + return overflow;
> +}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
