From: daniel.thompson@linaro•org (Daniel Thompson)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm: perf: Prevent wraparound during overflow
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 19:31:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150105193120.GA9167@sundance.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150105145739.GU30905@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:57:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> > index 266cba46db3e..ab68833c1e31 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> > @@ -115,8 +115,14 @@ int armpmu_event_set_period(struct perf_event *event)
> > ret = 1;
> > }
> >
> > - if (left > (s64)armpmu->max_period)
> > - left = armpmu->max_period;
> > + /*
> > + * Limit the maximum period to prevent the counter value
> > + * from overtaking the one we are about to program. In
> > + * effect we are reducing max_period to account for
> > + * interrupt latency (and we are being very conservative).
> > + */
> > + if (left > (armpmu->max_period >> 1))
> > + left = armpmu->max_period >> 1;
>
> On x86 we simply half max_period, why did you choose to do differently?
In truth because I didn't look at the x86 code... there is an existing
halving of max_period in the arm code and that was enough to satisfy me
that halving max_period was reasonable.
Predividing max_period looks to me like it would work for ARM too although I
don't think we could blame hardware insanity for doing so ;-).
Will: Do you want me to update this?
--
Daniel Thompson (STMicroelectronics) <daniel.thompson@st•com>
1000 Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4SQ. 01454 462659
If a car is a horseless carriage then is a motorcycle a horseless horse?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-05 19:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-19 15:52 [PATCH] arm: perf: Prevent wraparound during overflow Daniel Thompson
2014-11-19 18:11 ` Will Deacon
2014-11-20 12:14 ` Daniel Thompson
2014-11-21 16:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] arm+arm64: " Daniel Thompson
2014-11-21 16:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] arm: " Daniel Thompson
2014-12-04 10:26 ` Will Deacon
2014-12-04 13:58 ` Daniel Thompson
2015-01-05 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-01-05 19:31 ` Daniel Thompson [this message]
2015-01-06 19:46 ` Will Deacon
2014-11-21 16:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: " Daniel Thompson
2014-12-04 10:27 ` Will Deacon
2014-12-22 9:39 ` [PATCH 3.19-rc1 v3] arm: " Daniel Thompson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150105193120.GA9167@sundance.lan \
--to=daniel.thompson@linaro$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox