perf_counter: Accurate period data

We currently log hw.sample_period for PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD, however this is
incorrect. When we adjust the period, it will only take effect the next
cycle but report it for the current cycle. So when we adjust the period
for every cycle, we're always wrong.

Solve this by keeping track of the last_period.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
Peter Zijlstra 2009-06-10 21:34:59 +02:00 committed by Ingo Molnar
parent df1a132bf3
commit 9e350de37a
4 changed files with 28 additions and 11 deletions

View file

@ -2495,7 +2495,7 @@ static void perf_counter_output(struct perf_counter *counter, int nmi,
perf_output_put(&handle, cpu_entry);
if (sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD)
perf_output_put(&handle, counter->hw.sample_period);
perf_output_put(&handle, data->period);
/*
* XXX PERF_SAMPLE_GROUP vs inherited counters seems difficult.
@ -3040,11 +3040,13 @@ static void perf_swcounter_set_period(struct perf_counter *counter)
if (unlikely(left <= -period)) {
left = period;
atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, left);
hwc->last_period = period;
}
if (unlikely(left <= 0)) {
left += period;
atomic64_add(period, &hwc->period_left);
hwc->last_period = period;
}
atomic64_set(&hwc->prev_count, -left);
@ -3086,8 +3088,9 @@ static void perf_swcounter_overflow(struct perf_counter *counter,
int nmi, struct pt_regs *regs, u64 addr)
{
struct perf_sample_data data = {
.regs = regs,
.addr = addr,
.regs = regs,
.addr = addr,
.period = counter->hw.last_period,
};
perf_swcounter_update(counter);