Hi Ganapat,
Sorry for the delay in replying; I was away most of last week.
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:03:19PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gklkml16@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:30:47PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> >>> +static int alloc_counter(struct thunderx2_pmu_uncore_channel *pmu_uncore)
> >>> +{
> >>> + int counter;
> >>> +
> >>> + raw_spin_lock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> >>> + counter = find_first_zero_bit(pmu_uncore->counter_mask,
> >>> + pmu_uncore->uncore_dev->max_counters);
> >>> + if (counter == pmu_uncore->uncore_dev->max_counters) {
> >>> + raw_spin_unlock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> >>> + return -ENOSPC;
> >>> + }
> >>> + set_bit(counter, pmu_uncore->counter_mask);
> >>> + raw_spin_unlock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> >>> + return counter;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void free_counter(struct thunderx2_pmu_uncore_channel *pmu_uncore,
> >>> + int counter)
> >>> +{
> >>> + raw_spin_lock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> >>> + clear_bit(counter, pmu_uncore->counter_mask);
> >>> + raw_spin_unlock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> I don't believe that locking is required in either of these, as the perf
> >> core serializes pmu::add() and pmu::del(), where these get called.
>
> without this locking, i am seeing "BUG: scheduling while atomic" when
> i run perf with more events together than the maximum counters
> supported
Did you manage to get to the bottom of this?
Do you have a backtrace?
It looks like in your latest posting you reserve counters through the
userspace ABI, which doesn't seem right to me, and I'd like to
understand the problem.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
