[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29084.1348557014@neuling.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:10:14 +1000
From: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: K Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: powerpc/perf: hw breakpoints return ENOSPC
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org> wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:23:54PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've been trying to get hardware breakpoints with perf to work on POWER7
> > > but I'm getting the following:
> > >
> > > % perf record -e mem:0x10000000 true
> > >
> > > Error: sys_perf_event_open() syscall returned with 28 (No space left on device). /bin/dmesg may provide additional information.
> > >
> > > Fatal: No CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS=y kernel support configured?
> > >
> > > true: Terminated
> > >
> > > (FWIW adding -a and it works fine)
> > >
> > > Debugging it seems that __reserve_bp_slot() is returning ENOSPC because
> > > it thinks there are no free breakpoint slots on this CPU.
> > >
> > > I have a 2 CPUs, so perf userspace is doing two perf_event_open syscalls
> > > to add a counter to each CPU [1]. The first syscall succeeds but the
> > > second is failing.
> > >
> > > On this second syscall, fetch_bp_busy_slots() sets slots.pinned to be 1,
> > > despite there being no breakpoint on this CPU. This is because the call
> > > the task_bp_pinned, checks all CPUs, rather than just the current CPU.
> > > POWER7 only has one hardware breakpoint per CPU (ie. HBP_NUM=1), so we
> > > return ENOSPC.
> > >
> > > The following patch fixes this by checking the associated CPU for each
> > > breakpoint in task_bp_pinned. I'm not familiar with this code, so it's
> > > provided as a reference to the above issue.
> > >
> > > Mikey
> > >
> > > 1. not sure why it doesn't just do one syscall and specify all CPUs, but
> > > that's another issue. Using two syscalls should work.
> >
> > This patch seems to make sense. I'll try it and run some tests.
> > Can I have your Signed-off-by ?
Frederic,
Did you ever get to testing or integrating this patch?
Mikey
> Of course...
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
--
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