[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306250318.18455.44.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:18:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vince Weaver <vweaver1@...s.utk.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fbuihuu@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu,
paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com
Subject: Re: perf: regression with PERF_EVENT_IOC_REFRESH
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 17:11 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 11:04 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > As an aside, I also wasted 6 hours last night finding out that you don't
> > get signaled on overflow if you don't have a ring-buffer mmap()ed, even
> > if you never read from the buffer and you only are interested in counting
> > the number of overflows.
>
> That sounds like something we could fix, let me investigate.
Does the below cure this?
---
kernel/events/core.c | 5 ++++-
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index c09767f..bd1ba5e 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -5018,9 +5018,12 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event, int nmi,
event->pending_kill = POLL_HUP;
if (nmi) {
event->pending_disable = 1;
+ event->pending_wakeup = 1;
irq_work_queue(&event->pending);
- } else
+ } else {
perf_event_disable(event);
+ perf_event_wakeup(event);
+ }
}
if (event->overflow_handler)
--
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