From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp01.in.ibm.com (e28smtp01.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e28smtp01.in.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DDC32C00BF for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:42:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:12:32 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (d28av03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.65]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qA6AgT4S40697860 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:12:29 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av03.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qA6AgTxr019018 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:42:29 +1100 Message-ID: <5098E9A7.9060200@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:12:47 +0530 From: Anshuman Khandual MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Neuling Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/perf: Fix finding overflowed PMC in interrupt References: <20121106122559.38ea906f@kryten> <1352166835-27980-1-git-send-email-mikey@neuling.org> <5098B28B.2070703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <21513.1352197182@neuling.org> In-Reply-To: <21513.1352197182@neuling.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Linux PPC dev , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 11/06/2012 03:49 PM, Michael Neuling wrote: >> >> >> I have couple of questions. >> >> Can the buggy overflow happen on any of the available counters PMC1-PMC4 ? > > No. It's limited to certain events and I believe it can only happen on > PMC2 and 4. This code doesn't bother trying to make this distinction > though. > >> Will this approach never reset an actual user defined event (with >> sample period < 256) ? Is this related to the counter or the event >> which it is counting ? Just wondering if we have to do something more >> than checking for the count < 256. Just a thought. > > > I don't understand what you mean by these questions. Can you explain a > bit more? > Thats fine. The previous answer explains it well. Thanks !