[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1347475934.15764.90.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:52:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf, intel: Don't touch MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR from
NMI context
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 20:50 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > As for BTS, it looks like we don't throttle the thing at all, so we
> > shouldn't ever get to the asymmetric thing, right?
> No you do, in the same function:
> static void intel_pmu_disable_event(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
>
> if (unlikely(hwc->idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS)) {
> intel_pmu_disable_bts();
> intel_pmu_drain_bts_buffer();
> return;
> }
Right, but the main event loop in intel_pmu_handle_irq() is over the
MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS status bits, BTS is not included in those,
so we'd never end up calling x86_pmu_stop() on the associated event.
--
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