[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289582265.2084.328.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:17:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf-events: Add support for supplementary event
registers v2
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 17:55 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> @@ -127,6 +129,13 @@ struct cpu_hw_events {
> struct perf_branch_stack lbr_stack;
> struct perf_branch_entry lbr_entries[MAX_LBR_ENTRIES];
>
> + /*
> + * Intel percore register state.
> + * Coordinate shared resources between HT threads.
> + */
> + int percore_used; /* Used by this CPU? */
> + struct intel_percore *per_core;
> +
> /*
> * AMD specific bits
> */
> +/*
> + * Per core state
> + * This used to coordinate shared resources for HT threads.
> + * Exists per CPU, but only the entry for the first CPU
> + * in the core is used.
> + */
> +struct intel_percore {
> + raw_spinlock_t lock; /* protect structure */
> + int ref; /* reference count */
> + u64 config; /* main counter config */
> + unsigned int extra_reg; /* extra MSR number */
> + u64 extra_config; /* extra MSR config */
> +};
> +static struct intel_percore __percpu *intel_percore;
Why have this pointer?
> @@ -923,6 +1045,35 @@ static void intel_clovertown_quirks(void)
> x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = NULL;
> }
>
> +static __initdata int needs_percore = 1; /* CHANGEME */
> +
> +static __init int init_intel_percore(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!needs_percore)
> + return 0;
> +
> + intel_percore = alloc_percpu(struct intel_percore);
> + if (!intel_percore)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + raw_spin_lock_init(&per_cpu_ptr(intel_percore, cpu)->lock);
> + per_cpu(cpu_hw_events, cpu).per_core =
> + per_cpu_ptr(intel_percore,
> + cpumask_first(topology_thread_cpumask(cpu)));
> + printk("cpu %d core %d\n",
> + cpu, cpumask_first(topology_thread_cpumask(cpu)));
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +/*
> + * Runs later because per cpu allocations don't work early on.
> + */
> +__initcall(init_intel_percore);
they should, perf is initialized from sched_init() [ I really should
move it into init/main.c some time ], which is after mm_init(), which
should be sufficient for all allocators to work.
Oh, wait, I ran into this a few days ago, the arch specific init call
actually runs before the main perf init, which is mightly strange, I
have this hunk (http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/9/530):
-void __init init_hw_perf_events(void)
+static int __init init_hw_perf_events(void)
{
struct event_constraint *c;
int err;
@@ -1363,11 +1363,11 @@ void __init init_hw_perf_events(void)
err = amd_pmu_init();
break;
default:
- return;
+ return 0;
}
if (err != 0) {
pr_cont("no PMU driver, software events only.\n");
- return;
+ return 0;
}
pmu_check_apic();
@@ -1418,9 +1418,12 @@ void __init init_hw_perf_events(void)
pr_info("... fixed-purpose events: %d\n", x86_pmu.num_counters_fixed);
pr_info("... event mask: %016Lx\n", x86_pmu.intel_ctrl);
perf_pmu_register(&pmu);
perf_cpu_notifier(x86_pmu_notifier);
+
+ return 0;
}
+early_initcall(init_hw_perf_events);
To cure that.
That said, why not simply:
kmalloc_node(sizeof(struct intel_percore)), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
cpu_to_node(cpu))
For each core, just like amd_alloc_nb() does. The amd code even frees
the allocation on cpu-hot-unplug of after all relevant cpus are gone.
--
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