[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100531164553.GD5489@lenovo>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 20:45:53 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf, x86: Segregate PMU workaraunds into
x86_pmu_quirk_ops structure
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 08:33:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 22:24 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > @@ -924,7 +930,11 @@ x86_perf_event_set_period(struct perf_ev
> > */
> > atomic64_set(&hwc->prev_count, (u64)-left);
> >
> > - wrmsrl(hwc->event_base + idx,
> > + if (x86_pmu.quirks.perfctr_write)
> > + x86_pmu.quirks.perfctr_write(hwc->event_base + idx,
> > + (u64)(-left) & x86_pmu.cntval_mask);
> > + else
> > + wrmsrl(hwc->event_base + idx,
> > (u64)(-left) & x86_pmu.cntval_mask);
>
> This bit is rather ugly,.. not quite sure how to clean it up though.
> Anybody got a bright idea?
>
Yes, I know, only a bit lighter solution could be like in patch
below, alternative instructions bring mess (and considering we
may have paravirt turned on -- even more mess), jump labels...
I didn't find them in tree, in which file(s) they are? I mean,
are they under review now or merged in some place?
So I guess plain test may be more-less fine here, hmm?
-- Cyrill
---
perf, x86: Make a second write to performance counter when needed
On Netburst cpu we need a second write to performance counter to
be sure it's updated properly.
Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 10 ++++++++++
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c | 9 +++++++++
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
=====================================================================
--- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
+++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
@@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ struct x86_pmu {
struct perf_event *event);
struct event_constraint *event_constraints;
void (*quirks)(void);
+ int perfctr_second_write;
int (*cpu_prepare)(int cpu);
void (*cpu_starting)(int cpu);
@@ -926,6 +927,15 @@ x86_perf_event_set_period(struct perf_ev
atomic64_set(&hwc->prev_count, (u64)-left);
wrmsrl(hwc->event_base + idx,
+ (u64)(-left) & x86_pmu.cntval_mask);
+
+ /*
+ * Due to erratum on certan cpu we need
+ * a second write to be sure the register
+ * is updated properly
+ */
+ if (x86_pmu.perfctr_second_write)
+ wrmsrl(hwc->event_base + idx,
(u64)(-left) & x86_pmu.cntval_mask);
perf_event_update_userpage(event);
Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
=====================================================================
--- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
+++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
@@ -829,6 +829,15 @@ static __initconst const struct x86_pmu
.max_period = (1ULL << 39) - 1,
.hw_config = p4_hw_config,
.schedule_events = p4_pmu_schedule_events,
+ /*
+ * This handles erratum N15 in intel doc 249199-029,
+ * the counter may not be updated correctly on write
+ * so we need a second write operation to do the trick
+ * (the official workaround didn't work)
+ *
+ * the former idea is taken from OProfile code
+ */
+ .perfctr_second_write = 1,
};
static __init int p4_pmu_init(void)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists