On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:34:14PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> +
> + /*
> + * Modify static constraint with current dynamic
> + * state of thread
> + *
> + * EXCLUSIVE: sibling counter measuring exclusive event
> + * SHARED : sibling counter measuring non-exclusive event
> + * UNUSED : sibling counter unused
> + */
> + for_each_set_bit(i, cx->idxmsk, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) {
> + /*
> + * exclusive event in sibling counter
> + * our corresponding counter cannot be used
> + * regardless of our event
> + */
> + if (xl->state[i] == INTEL_EXCL_EXCLUSIVE)
> + __clear_bit(i, cx->idxmsk);
> + /*
> + * if measuring an exclusive event, sibling
> + * measuring non-exclusive, then counter cannot
> + * be used
> + */
> + if (is_excl && xl->state[i] == INTEL_EXCL_SHARED)
> + __clear_bit(i, cx->idxmsk);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * recompute actual bit weight for scheduling algorithm
> + */
> + cx->weight = hweight64(cx->idxmsk64);So I think we talked about this a bit; what happens if CPU0 (taking your 4 core HSW-client) is first to program its counters and takes all 4 in exclusive mode? Then there's none left for CPU4. Did I miss where we avoid that problem, or is that an actual issue?
pgpLXn3VBOAB3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
