From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
paulus@samba.org, anton@samba.org, acme@ghostprotocols.net,
mingo@elte.hu, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] POWER: perf_event: Skip updating kernel counters if register value shrinks
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:04:36 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1301551476.2407.61.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110330183656.GA2564@mgebm.net>
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 14:36 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 10:25 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > Here I made the assumption that the hardware would never remove more events in
> > > a speculative roll back than it had added. This is not a situation I
> > > encoutered in my limited testing, so I didn't think underflow was possible. I
> > > will send out a V2 using the signed 32 bit delta and remeber to CC stable
> > > this time.
> >
> > I'm not thinking about underflow but rollover... or that isn't possible
> > with those counters ? IE. They don't wrap back to 0 after hitting
> > ffffffff ?
> >
>
> They do roll over to 0 after ffffffff, but I thought that case was already
> covered by the perf_event_interrupt. Are you concerned that we will reset a
> counter and speculative roll back will underflow that counter?
No, but take this part of the patch:
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c
> @@ -416,6 +416,15 @@ static void power_pmu_read(struct perf_event *event)
> prev = local64_read(&event->hw.prev_count);
> barrier();
> val = read_pmc(event->hw.idx);
> + /*
> + * POWER7 can roll back counter values, if the new value is
> + * smaller than the previous value it will cause the delta
> + * and the counter to have bogus values. If this is the
> + * case skip updating anything until the counter grows again.
> + * This can lead to a small lack of precision in the counters.
> + */
> + if (val < prev)
> + return;
> } while (local64_cmpxchg(&event->hw.prev_count, prev, val) != prev);
Doesn't that mean that power_pmu_read() can only ever increase the value of
the perf_event and so will essentially -stop- once the counter rolls over ?
Similar comments every where you do this type of comparison.
Cheers,
Ben.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, paulus@samba.org, mingo@elte.hu,
acme@ghostprotocols.net, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, anton@samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] POWER: perf_event: Skip updating kernel counters if register value shrinks
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:04:36 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1301551476.2407.61.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110330183656.GA2564@mgebm.net>
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 14:36 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 10:25 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > Here I made the assumption that the hardware would never remove more events in
> > > a speculative roll back than it had added. This is not a situation I
> > > encoutered in my limited testing, so I didn't think underflow was possible. I
> > > will send out a V2 using the signed 32 bit delta and remeber to CC stable
> > > this time.
> >
> > I'm not thinking about underflow but rollover... or that isn't possible
> > with those counters ? IE. They don't wrap back to 0 after hitting
> > ffffffff ?
> >
>
> They do roll over to 0 after ffffffff, but I thought that case was already
> covered by the perf_event_interrupt. Are you concerned that we will reset a
> counter and speculative roll back will underflow that counter?
No, but take this part of the patch:
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c
> @@ -416,6 +416,15 @@ static void power_pmu_read(struct perf_event *event)
> prev = local64_read(&event->hw.prev_count);
> barrier();
> val = read_pmc(event->hw.idx);
> + /*
> + * POWER7 can roll back counter values, if the new value is
> + * smaller than the previous value it will cause the delta
> + * and the counter to have bogus values. If this is the
> + * case skip updating anything until the counter grows again.
> + * This can lead to a small lack of precision in the counters.
> + */
> + if (val < prev)
> + return;
> } while (local64_cmpxchg(&event->hw.prev_count, prev, val) != prev);
Doesn't that mean that power_pmu_read() can only ever increase the value of
the perf_event and so will essentially -stop- once the counter rolls over ?
Similar comments every where you do this type of comparison.
Cheers,
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-31 6:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-25 13:28 [PATCH] POWER: perf_event: Skip updating kernel counters if register value shrinks Eric B Munson
2011-03-25 13:28 ` Eric B Munson
2011-03-29 6:03 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-29 6:03 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-29 14:25 ` Eric B Munson
2011-03-29 14:25 ` Eric B Munson
2011-03-29 21:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-29 21:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-30 18:36 ` Eric B Munson
2011-03-30 18:36 ` Eric B Munson
2011-03-31 6:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2011-03-31 6:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-31 16:14 ` Eric B Munson
2011-03-31 16:14 ` Eric B Munson
2011-04-06 21:27 ` Eric B Munson
2011-04-06 21:27 ` Eric B Munson
2011-04-07 4:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-04-07 4:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-04-07 16:16 ` Eric B Munson
2011-04-07 16:16 ` Eric B Munson
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=1301551476.2407.61.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=emunson@mgebm.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.