Re: Oprofile Regression Caused by commit e5d1367f17ba6a6fed5fd8b74e4d5720923e0c25on PPC

[Stephane Eranian]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 19:38 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011, Eric B Munson wrote:
>>
>> > This commit seems to have caused a regression with oprofile. ÂIt is fairly easy
>> > to trigger, simply run oprofile monitoring an event that will fire (something
>> > frequent like CPU cycles) causes oprofile to fail saying that the PMU is in use.
>> > If I disable CONFIG_CGROUP_PERF, everything goes back to working. ÂI suspect the
>> > problem is that the PMU is being initialized without being reserved for perf. ÂI
>> > am not yet sure of the right fix yet so if you have any suggestions I would
>> > appreciate them.
>> >
>> > Eric
>>
>> This isn't the best description of the behavior we see, what happens is at some
>> point in the profiling session the MMCR register is clobbered by
>> perf_cgroup_switch() which calls perf_pmu_enable() without reserving the PMC
>> hardware. ÂWhen this happens oprofile stops counting. ÂIt doesn't happen each
>> time so some runs show event counts that are reasonable, but it can also lead to
>> event counts that are smaller than expected, or completely missing.
>
> What kernel are you testing?
>
Looking at 3.1-rc9, I doubt it's coming from perf_cgroup_switch(). The function
is checking for perf context with at least of cgroup event before
calling perf_pmu_disable().
If there is no active perf context, there is no cgroup event, thus the
function is a nop.
Even if you have a competing perf session, it would have to have at
least one cgroup
event for this code to touch HW. The problem must come from somewhere else.

>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/