perf_counter: Accurate period data

We currently log hw.sample_period for PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD, however this is
incorrect. When we adjust the period, it will only take effect the next
cycle but report it for the current cycle. So when we adjust the period
for every cycle, we're always wrong.

Solve this by keeping track of the last_period.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-10 21:34:59 +02:00
committed by Ingo Molnar
parent df1a132bf3
commit 9e350de37a
4 changed files with 28 additions and 11 deletions

View File

@@ -698,6 +698,7 @@ static int __hw_perf_counter_init(struct perf_counter *counter)
if (!hwc->sample_period) {
hwc->sample_period = x86_pmu.max_period;
hwc->last_period = hwc->sample_period;
atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, hwc->sample_period);
}
@@ -880,12 +881,14 @@ x86_perf_counter_set_period(struct perf_counter *counter,
if (unlikely(left <= -period)) {
left = period;
atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, left);
hwc->last_period = period;
ret = 1;
}
if (unlikely(left <= 0)) {
left += period;
atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, left);
hwc->last_period = period;
ret = 1;
}
/*
@@ -1257,9 +1260,12 @@ static int amd_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
if (val & (1ULL << (x86_pmu.counter_bits - 1)))
continue;
/* counter overflow */
handled = 1;
inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
/*
* counter overflow
*/
handled = 1;
data.period = counter->hw.last_period;
if (!x86_perf_counter_set_period(counter, hwc, idx))
continue;
@@ -1267,6 +1273,9 @@ static int amd_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
amd_pmu_disable_counter(hwc, idx);
}
if (handled)
inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
return handled;
}