[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150415183625.GY23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:36:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, acme@...radead.org,
eranian@...gle.com, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 4/6] perf, x86: handle multiple records in PEBS buffer
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:44PM -0400, Kan Liang wrote:
> +/* Clear all non-PEBS bits */
> +static u64
> +nonpebs_bit_clear(u64 pebs_status)
> +{
> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> + struct perf_event *event;
> + int bit;
> +
> + for_each_set_bit(bit, (unsigned long *)&pebs_status, 64) {
> +
> + if (bit >= x86_pmu.max_pebs_events)
> + clear_bit(bit, (unsigned long *)&pebs_status);
> + else {
> + event = cpuc->events[bit];
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!event);
> +
> + if (!event->attr.precise_ip)
> + clear_bit(bit, (unsigned long *)&pebs_status);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return pebs_status;
> +}
What was wrong with:
status = p->status & cpuc->pebs_enabled;
?
We use the same index bits in the PEBS_ENABLE MSR as in the status reg,
right? If you're really paranoid you can mask out the high (>31) bits
too I suppose.
--
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