Re: [PATCH 4/9] perf/x86: add cross-HT counter exclusion infrastructure

[Stephane Eranian]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:34:13PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> @@ -2020,12 +2050,29 @@ static void intel_pmu_cpu_starting(int cpu)
>>
>>       if (x86_pmu.lbr_sel_map)
>>               cpuc->lbr_sel = &cpuc->shared_regs->regs[EXTRA_REG_LBR];
>> +
>> +     if (x86_pmu.flags & PMU_FL_EXCL_CNTRS) {
>> +             for_each_cpu(i, topology_thread_cpumask(cpu)) {
>> +                     struct intel_excl_cntrs *c;
>> +
>> +                     c = per_cpu(cpu_hw_events, i).excl_cntrs;
>> +                     if (c && c->core_id == core_id) {
>> +                             cpuc->kfree_on_online[1] = cpuc->excl_cntrs;
>> +                             cpuc->excl_cntrs = c;
>> +                             cpuc->excl_thread_id = 1;
>> +                             break;
>> +                     }
>> +             }
>> +             cpuc->excl_cntrs->core_id = core_id;
>> +             cpuc->excl_cntrs->refcnt++;
>> +     }
>>  }
>
> This hard assumes theres only ever 2 threads, which is true and I
> suppose more in arch/x86 will come apart the moment Intel makes a chip
> with more, still, do we have topology_thread_id() or so to cure this?

I assume your comment is relative to kfree_on_online[].
This code is specific to the HT bug, so yes, it assumes 2 threads and that
only one entry of the two excl_cntrs structs needs to be freed.
Doing otherwise, would require a list and will never be used to its full
potential.
--
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/