On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:42:46AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 03/10/13 11:17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:46:59PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >> On 02/10/13 16:23, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >>> hi,
> >>> got a segfault in the tsc test on latest acme's tree.
> >>>
> >>> I'm dealing with some other issues right now, so just reporting ;-)
> >>
> >> The capability bits have changed positions. You need to have:
> >>
> >> commit fa7315871046b9a4c48627905691dbde57e51033
> >> Author: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> >> Date: Thu Sep 19 10:16:42 2013 +0200
> >>
> >> perf: Fix capabilities bitfield compatibility in 'struct
> >> perf_event_mmap_page'
> >
> > ok, I'll try that.. but anyway, the test should
> > not crash in account of missing kernel change
>
> No the ABI is broken in that case - better to crash.
No; neither case should crash.
Anyway; looking at this, why does time_zero have these different checks
from the other time bits?
@@ -1897,6 +1898,11 @@ void arch_perf_update_userpage(struct
perf_event_mmap_page *userpg, u64 now)
userpg->time_mult = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns);
userpg->time_shift = CYC2NS_SCALE_FACTOR;
userpg->time_offset = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns_offset) - now;
+
+ if (sched_clock_stable && !check_tsc_disabled()) {
+ userpg->cap_usr_time_zero = 1;
+ userpg->time_zero = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns_offset);
+ }
}
That doesn't make any kind of sense.. why is cyc2ns_offset differently
tested from cyc2ns itself?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
