[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBSuQCJkmJYbno_qsb=erOOf3uf84sQsSCzoov-6=7r40Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:32:46 +0100
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c:989
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 15:13 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Ok, I found the problem!
>>
>> it comes from perf_adjust_freq_unthr_context() vs perf_adjust_period().
>> The latter can under certain condition stop and restart the event. So we
>> had:
>>
>> stop()
>> if (delta > 0) {
>> perf_adjust_period() {
>> if (period > 8*...) {
>> stop()
>> ...
>> start()
>> }
>> }
>> }
>> start()
>>
>> Could have a double stop() and double start(), thus triggering the warning in
>> x86_pmu_start().
>>
>> Will post a patch shortly to fix this.
>
> Nice, thanks for looking at this!
>
I am wondering why we stop and restart the code in perf_adjust_period()
when it's called from __perf_event_overflow(). Isn't it supposed to be stopped
already by the model specific interrupt handler. Looks like we do stop/start,
just to get the reload aspect of start. Is that right?
--
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