[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100902200021.GO4879@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:00:21 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, robert.richter@....com,
fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ying.huang@...el.com, ming.m.lin@...el.com, yinghai@...nel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf, x86: Fix accidentally ack'ing a second event
on intel perf counter
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 11:26:27PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Lets assume 1 counters is triggered and global bit is set as well
>
> we have here
>
> status = intel_pmu_get_status();
>
> > perf_sample_data_init(&data, 0);
> >
> > @@ -728,6 +728,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >
> > loops = 0;
> > again:
> > + intel_pmu_ack_status(status);
>
> So here we write just being read value back to CTRL register and _if_ new
> overflow happened in this window we've cleared it without processing.
No, you have to write a '1' to clear. If a new bit is set after we read
it, then our 'status' var should have a '0' in that bit and thus will not
get cleared when we ack it.
Cheers,
Don
--
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