On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:14:08PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote:

That lock is disgusting... but yes patch looks about right.

I'll leave it to the MIPS people though.

> ---
>  arch/mips/kernel/perf_event_mipsxx.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/perf_event_mipsxx.c 
> b/arch/mips/kernel/perf_event_mipsxx.c
> index 8c35b31..9452b02 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/perf_event_mipsxx.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/perf_event_mipsxx.c
> @@ -1446,6 +1446,11 @@ static int mipsxx_pmu_handle_shared_irq(void)
>       HANDLE_COUNTER(0)
>       }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MIPS_PERF_SHARED_TC_COUNTERS
> +     read_unlock(&pmuint_rwlock);
> +#endif
> +     resume_local_counters();
> +
>       /*
>        * Do all the work for the pending perf events. We can do this
>        * in here because the performance counter interrupt is a regular
> @@ -1454,10 +1459,6 @@ static int mipsxx_pmu_handle_shared_irq(void)
>       if (handled == IRQ_HANDLED)
>               irq_work_run();
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_MIPS_PERF_SHARED_TC_COUNTERS
> -     read_unlock(&pmuint_rwlock);
> -#endif
> -     resume_local_counters();
>       return handled;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.7.0
> 

Reply via email to