On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> 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?
Yes, this patch series does not address this problem yet. It will be
in a second series.
Don't have a good solution yet.
--
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/
