[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110117161742.5feb3761@kryten>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:17:42 +1100
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] powerpc: perf: Fix frequency calculation for overflowing
counters
When profiling a benchmark that is almost 100% userspace, I noticed some
wildly inaccurate profiles that showed almost all time spent in the kernel.
Closer examination shows we were programming a tiny number of cycles into
the PMU after each overflow (about ~200 away from the next overflow). This
gets us stuck in a loop which we eventually break out of by throttling the
PMU (there are regular throttle/unthrottle events in the log).
It looks like we aren't setting event->hw.last_period to something same
and the frequency to period calculations in perf are going haywire. With
the following patch we find the correct period after a few interrupts and
stay there. I also see no more throttle events.
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
---
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c
index 5674807..ab6f6be 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -1212,6 +1212,7 @@ static void record_and_restart(struct perf_event *event, unsigned long val,
if (left <= 0)
left = period;
record = 1;
+ event->hw.last_period = event->hw.sample_period;
}
if (left < 0x80000000LL)
val = 0x80000000LL - left;
--
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