[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100903140330.GW4879@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:03:30 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] [x86] perf: fix accidentally ack'ing a second event
on intel perf counter
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 01:02:49PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Here is an example of what I gathered on a Westmere:
>
> This is coming into the interrupt handler:
> - status = overflow status coming from GLOBAL_OVF_STATUS
> - status2 = inspection of the counters
> - act = cpuc->active_mask[0]
>
> In case both status don't match, I dump the state of the active events
> incl. the counter values(val).
>
> [ 822.813808] CPU2 irqin status=0x6 status2=0x4 act=0x7
> [ 822.813818] CPU2 cfg=0x13003c idx=0 sel=53003c val=ffffa833f298
> [ 822.813821] CPU2 cfg=0x12003c idx=1 sel=52003c val=fffffe130229
> [ 822.813823] CPU2 cfg=0x11003c idx=2 sel=51003c val=5e9
>
> Here only counter2 has overflowed, yet the handler will also process counter1
> which is wrong.
Hmm, the test case I used was 'perf top'. This was only using perf
counter0. So I am not sure, at least in my case, it was a stale event.
Though I don't think I remember checking the status immediately after
acking it just to verify the ack worked.
I'll poke some more on my machine today.
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