[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aKVD4ATXW4LmhDJm@tassilo>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 20:41:20 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 3/7] perf/x86: Check if cpuc->events[*] pointer exists
before accessing it
> event = cpuc->events[bit];
> + /*
> + * perf_event_overflow() called by below __intel_pmu_pebs_last_event()
> + * could trigger interrupt throttle and clear all event pointers of the
> + * group in cpuc->events[] to NULL. So need to re-check if cpuc->events[*]
> + * is NULL, if so it indicates the event has been throttled (stopped) and
> + * the corresponding last PEBS records have been processed in stopping
> + * event, don't need to process it again.
> + */
> + if (!event)
> + continue;
Then we silently ignore the overflow. Would be better to log at least an overflow
packet or something like that.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists