On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:40:53PM -0700, kan.li...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Kan Liang <kan.li...@linux.intel.com>
>
> To get correct PERF_METRICS value, the fixed counter 3 must start from
> 0. It would bring problems when sampling read slots and topdown events.
> For example,
> perf record -e '{slots, topdown-retiring}:S'
> The slots would not overflow if it starts from 0.
>
> Add specific validate_group() support to reject the case and error out
> for Icelake.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.li...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/core.c | 2 ++
> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> index 07ecfe75f0e6..a7eb842f8651 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> @@ -2065,6 +2065,8 @@ static int validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
> fake_cpuc->n_events = 0;
> ret = x86_pmu.schedule_events(fake_cpuc, n, NULL);
>
> + if (x86_pmu.validate_group)
> + ret = x86_pmu.validate_group(fake_cpuc, n);
> out:
> free_fake_cpuc(fake_cpuc);
> return ret;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index 79e9d05e047d..2bb90d652a35 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -4410,6 +4410,25 @@ static int icl_set_period(struct perf_event *event)
> return 1;
> }
>
> +static int icl_validate_group(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int n)
> +{
> + bool has_sampling_slots = false, has_metrics = false;
> + struct perf_event *e;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> + e = cpuc->event_list[i];
> + if (is_slots_event(e) && is_sampling_event(e))
> + has_sampling_slots = true;
> +
> + if (is_perf_metrics_event(e))
> + has_metrics = true;
> + }
> + if (unlikely(has_sampling_slots && has_metrics))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + return 0;
> +}
Why this special hack, why not disallow sampling on SLOTS on creation?
