Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: Rework the perf counterdisable/enable

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 21:05 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra writes:
> 
> > x86 NMI/INT throttling has non-nested use of this, breaking things. Therefore
> > provide a reference counter disable/enable interface, where the first disable
> > disables the hardware, and the last enable enables the hardware again.
> 
> It looks to me like what you've done for powerpc enables the hardware
> again on the first enable, not the last one:
> 
> > @@ -436,7 +435,7 @@ u64 hw_perf_save_disable(void)
> >   * If we were previously disabled and counters were added, then
> >   * put the new config on the PMU.
> >   */
> > -void hw_perf_restore(u64 disable)
> > +void hw_perf_enable(void)
> >  {
> >  	struct perf_counter *counter;
> >  	struct cpu_hw_counters *cpuhw;
> > @@ -448,9 +447,12 @@ void hw_perf_restore(u64 disable)
> >  	int n_lim;
> >  	int idx;
> >  
> > -	if (disable)
> > -		return;
> >  	local_irq_save(flags);
> > +	if (!cpuhw->disabled) {
> > +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	cpuhw = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_counters);
> >  	cpuhw->disabled = 0;
> 
> I do rely on nesting the disable/enable calls and only having the
> hardware re-enabled on the last enable.  I can't see anything here
> that detects the last enable.  Have I missed it somewhere?

+void perf_disable(void)
+{
+       __perf_disable();
+       hw_perf_disable();
+}

+void perf_enable(void)
+{
+       if (__perf_enable())
+               hw_perf_enable();
+}



--
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/