The nmi parameter indicated if we could do wakeups from the current
context, if not, we would set some state and self-IPI and let the
resulting interrupt do the wakeup.
For the various event classes:
- hardware: nmi=0; PMI is in fact an NMI or we run irq_work_run from
the PMI-tail (ARM etc.)
- tracepoint: nmi=0; since tracepoint could be from NMI context.
- software: nmi=[0,1]; some, like the schedule thing cannot
perform wakeups, and hence need 0.
As one can see, there is very little nmi=1 usage, and the down-side of
not using it is that on some platforms some software events can have a
jiffy delay in wakeup (when arch_irq_work_raise isn't implemented).
The up-side however is that we can remove the nmi parameter and save a
bunch of conditionals in fast paths.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Michael Cree <mcree@orcon.net.nz>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Deng-Cheng Zhu <dengcheng.zhu@gmail.com>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Cc: Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-agjev8eu666tvknpb3iaj0fg@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
If a counter overflows during a perf stat profiling run it may overtake
the last known value of the counter:
0 prev new 0xffffffff
|----------|-------|----------------------|
In this case, the number of events that have occurred is
(0xffffffff - prev) + new. Unfortunately, the event update code will
not realise an overflow has occurred and will instead report the event
delta as (new - prev) which may be considerably smaller than the real
count.
This patch adds an extra argument to armpmu_event_update which indicates
whether or not an overflow has occurred. If an overflow has occurred
then we use the maximum period of the counter to calculate the elapsed
events.
Acked-by: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>
Reported-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwinc@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Introduce a CPU_V6K configuration option for platforms to select if they
have a V6K CPU core. This allows us to identify whether we need to
support ARMv6 CPUs without the V6K SMP extensions at build time.
Currently CPU_V6K is just an alias for CPU_V6, and all places which
reference CPU_V6 are replaced by (CPU_V6 || CPU_V6K).
Select CPU_V6K from platforms which are known to be V6K-only.
Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Tested-by: Sourav Poddar <sourav.poddar@ti.com>
Tested-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
For kernels built with PREEMPT_RT, critical sections protected
by standard spinlocks are preemptible. This is not acceptable
on perf as (a) we may be scheduled onto a different CPU whilst
reading/writing banked PMU registers and (b) the latency when
reading the PMU registers becomes unpredictable.
This patch upgrades the pmu_lock spinlock to a raw_spinlock
instead.
Reported-by: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Russell reported a number of warnings coming from sparse when
checking the ARM perf_event.c files:
| perf_event.c seems to also have problems too:
|
| CHECK arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:37:1: warning: symbol 'pmu_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:70:1: warning: symbol 'cpu_hw_events' was not declared. Should it be static?
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:1006:1: warning: symbol 'armv6pmu_enable_event' was not declared. Should it be static?
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:1113:1: warning: symbol 'armv6pmu_stop' was not declared. Should it be static?
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:1956:6: warning: symbol 'armv7pmu_enable_event' was not declared. Should it be static?
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:3072:14: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:3072:14: expected void const volatile [noderef] <asn:1>*<noident>
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:3072:14: got struct frame_tail *tail
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:3074:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:3074:49: expected void const [noderef] <asn:1>*from
| arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c:3074:49: got struct frame_tail *tail
This patch resolves these issues so we can live in silence
again.
Reported-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
The ARM perf_event.c file contains all PMU backends and, as new PMUs
are introduced, will continue to grow.
This patch follows the example of x86 and splits the PMU implementations
into separate files which are then #included back into the main
file. Compile-time guards are added to each PMU file to avoid compiling
in code that is not relevant for the version of the architecture which
we are targetting.
Acked-by: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
