From e4abb5d4f7ddabc1fc7c392cf0a10d8e5868c9ca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:08:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] perf_counter: x86: Emulate longer sample periods Do as Power already does, emulate sample periods up to 2^63-1 by composing them of smaller values limited by hardware capabilities. Only once we wrap the software period do we generate an overflow event. Just 10 lines of new code. Reported-by: Stephane Eranian Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Mike Galbraith Cc: Paul Mackerras Cc: Corey Ashford Cc: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: John Kacur LKML-Reference: Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c index 9e144fbebd2..904571bea71 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c @@ -287,8 +287,7 @@ static int __hw_perf_counter_init(struct perf_counter *counter) if (!hwc->sample_period) hwc->sample_period = x86_pmu.max_period; - atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, - min(x86_pmu.max_period, hwc->sample_period)); + atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, hwc->sample_period); /* * Raw event type provide the config in the event structure @@ -451,13 +450,13 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, prev_left[X86_PMC_IDX_MAX]); * Set the next IRQ period, based on the hwc->period_left value. * To be called with the counter disabled in hw: */ -static void +static int x86_perf_counter_set_period(struct perf_counter *counter, struct hw_perf_counter *hwc, int idx) { s64 left = atomic64_read(&hwc->period_left); - s64 period = min(x86_pmu.max_period, hwc->sample_period); - int err; + s64 period = hwc->sample_period; + int err, ret = 0; /* * If we are way outside a reasoable range then just skip forward: @@ -465,11 +464,13 @@ x86_perf_counter_set_period(struct perf_counter *counter, if (unlikely(left <= -period)) { left = period; atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, left); + ret = 1; } if (unlikely(left <= 0)) { left += period; atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, left); + ret = 1; } /* * Quirk: certain CPUs dont like it if just 1 event is left: @@ -477,6 +478,9 @@ x86_perf_counter_set_period(struct perf_counter *counter, if (unlikely(left < 2)) left = 2; + if (left > x86_pmu.max_period) + left = x86_pmu.max_period; + per_cpu(prev_left[idx], smp_processor_id()) = left; /* @@ -487,6 +491,8 @@ x86_perf_counter_set_period(struct perf_counter *counter, err = checking_wrmsrl(hwc->counter_base + idx, (u64)(-left) & x86_pmu.counter_mask); + + return ret; } static inline void @@ -706,16 +712,19 @@ static void x86_pmu_disable(struct perf_counter *counter) * Save and restart an expired counter. Called by NMI contexts, * so it has to be careful about preempting normal counter ops: */ -static void intel_pmu_save_and_restart(struct perf_counter *counter) +static int intel_pmu_save_and_restart(struct perf_counter *counter) { struct hw_perf_counter *hwc = &counter->hw; int idx = hwc->idx; + int ret; x86_perf_counter_update(counter, hwc, idx); - x86_perf_counter_set_period(counter, hwc, idx); + ret = x86_perf_counter_set_period(counter, hwc, idx); if (counter->state == PERF_COUNTER_STATE_ACTIVE) intel_pmu_enable_counter(hwc, idx); + + return ret; } static void intel_pmu_reset(void) @@ -782,7 +791,9 @@ again: if (!test_bit(bit, cpuc->active_mask)) continue; - intel_pmu_save_and_restart(counter); + if (!intel_pmu_save_and_restart(counter)) + continue; + if (perf_counter_overflow(counter, nmi, regs, 0)) intel_pmu_disable_counter(&counter->hw, bit); } @@ -824,9 +835,11 @@ static int amd_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs, int nmi) continue; /* counter overflow */ - x86_perf_counter_set_period(counter, hwc, idx); handled = 1; inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs); + if (!x86_perf_counter_set_period(counter, hwc, idx)) + continue; + if (perf_counter_overflow(counter, nmi, regs, 0)) amd_pmu_disable_counter(hwc, idx); } -- 2.41.0