On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:59:13AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
On 04/01/16 19:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:54:44AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:The pmu is not disabled while we are in overflow irq handler. Hence there may
not be a pmu_enable() which would set the period for the counter which
overflowed, if defer the write in that case. Is that assumption wrong ?
As the driver stands today, yes.
However, wouldn't it make more sense to disable the PMU for the overflow
handler, such that we can reuse the batching logic?