lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[patch/rfc] perf on raspberry-pi without overflow interrupt

I'm working on getting the hardware performance counters working on a
Raspberry-Pi (BCM2835/ARM1176).

The counters are there, but the overflow interrupt is not hooked up so the
init code disables perf_event.

The following patch enables perf_event and it works fine for simple
"perf stat" type workloads. perf record and anything requiring sampling
doesn't work (as expected).

I thought I would have to add a periodic timer to catch counter overflows,
but it turns out that's unnecessary. From what I can tell even though the
nPMUIRQ interrupt is not hooked up, the overflows are marked in the status
register and this is noticed and handled at context-switch time. So as
long as the counters overflow less frequently than the context switch
interval the registers don't overflow.

So my question, is a patch like this acceptable?

Should the perf_event interface handle setups like this better and work
fine in aggregate mode but return ENOTSUP if a sampled or overflow event
is attempted?

Vince


Signed-off-by: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
index d85055c..ff1a752 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
@@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ static int cpu_pmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu, irq_handler_t handler)

irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
if (irqs < 1) {
- pr_err("no irqs for PMUs defined\n");
- return -ENODEV;
+ printk_once("no irqs for PMUs defined, enabling anyway\n");
+ return 0;
}

for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-08 22:41    [W:0.073 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site