On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:58:05PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> >> + list_for_each_entry(event, &pmu->active_list, active_entry) {
>> >> + rapl_event_update(event);
>> >> + }
>> >
>> > hi,
>> > I dont fully understand the reason for the timer,
>> > I'm probably missing something..
>> >
>> The reason is rather simple and is similar to what happens with uncore.
>> The counter are narrow, 32-bit and there is no interrupt capability. We
>> need to poll the counters and accumulate in the sw counter to avoid missing
>> an overflow.
>>
>> > - the timer calls rapl_event_update for all defined events
>>
>> No, only for the defined RAPL events which is what we want.
>
> ok, that's what I meant
>
>>
>> > - but rapl_pmu_event_read calls rapl_event_update any time the
>> > event is read (sys_read)
>> >
>> Yes, but we want to prevent missing a counter overflow. It may happen
>> if the counter counts in a unit which increments fast.
>>
>> > The rapl_event_update only read msr and updates
>> > event->count|hw,prev_count.
>> No, it does update the count:
>> local64_add(sdelta, &event->count);
>
> ah, there's the shift that takes care of the
> overflowed msr value.. ok
>
No, we try to poll the counter faster than it can possibly overflow.
--
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/
