On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:33:45PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > From: Kan Liang <[email protected]> > > Using is_hardware_event to replace !is_software_event to indicate a > hardware event.
Why...? For an uncore event e, is_hardware_event(e) != !is_software_event(e), so this will be a change of behaviour... > > Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]> > --- > include/linux/perf_event.h | 7 ++++++- > kernel/events/core.c | 6 +++--- > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h > index 2027809..fea0ddf 100644 > --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h > +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h > @@ -761,13 +761,18 @@ static inline bool is_sampling_event(struct perf_event > *event) > } > > /* > - * Return 1 for a software event, 0 for a hardware event > + * Return 1 for a software event, 0 for other event > */ > static inline int is_software_event(struct perf_event *event) > { > return event->pmu->task_ctx_nr == perf_sw_context; > } > > +static inline int is_hardware_event(struct perf_event *event) > +{ > + return event->pmu->task_ctx_nr == perf_hw_context; > +} > + > extern struct static_key perf_swevent_enabled[PERF_COUNT_SW_MAX]; > > extern void ___perf_sw_event(u32, u64, struct pt_regs *, u64); > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c > index d3dae34..9077867 100644 > --- a/kernel/events/core.c > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c > @@ -1347,7 +1347,7 @@ static void perf_group_attach(struct perf_event *event) > WARN_ON_ONCE(group_leader->ctx != event->ctx); > > if (group_leader->group_flags & PERF_GROUP_SOFTWARE && > - !is_software_event(event)) > + is_hardware_event(event)) > group_leader->group_flags &= ~PERF_GROUP_SOFTWARE; > > list_add_tail(&event->group_entry, &group_leader->sibling_list); > @@ -1553,7 +1553,7 @@ event_sched_out(struct perf_event *event, > event->pmu->del(event, 0); > event->oncpu = -1; > > - if (!is_software_event(event)) > + if (is_hardware_event(event)) > cpuctx->active_oncpu--; > if (!--ctx->nr_active) > perf_event_ctx_deactivate(ctx); > @@ -1881,7 +1881,7 @@ event_sched_in(struct perf_event *event, > goto out; > } > > - if (!is_software_event(event)) > + if (is_hardware_event(event)) > cpuctx->active_oncpu++; > if (!ctx->nr_active++) > perf_event_ctx_activate(ctx); ... whereby we won't accuont uncore events as active, and thereforef will never perform throttling. That doesn't sound right. Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
