[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200322083544.GE2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 09:35:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test x86: address multiplexing in rdpmc test
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:44:49AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 6:41 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:14:00PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > Counters may be being used for pinned or other events which inhibit the
> > > instruction counter in the test from being scheduled - time_enabled > 0
> > > but time_running == 0. This causes the test to fail with division by 0.
> > > Add a sleep loop to ensure that the counter is run before computing
> > > the count.
> > > +
> > > + if (running == 0) {
> >
> > This is not in fact the condition the Changelog calls out.
>
> Not sure I follow. As in the multiplexing? It is exactly the condition
> that time_running == 0.
I meant the condition should be 'enabled && !running'.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists