From 9e350de37ac9607012fcf9c5314a28fbddf8f43c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:34:59 +0200 Subject: 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 Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Mike Galbraith Cc: Paul Mackerras Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo LKML-Reference: Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/perf_counter.c | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/perf_counter.c') diff --git a/kernel/perf_counter.c b/kernel/perf_counter.c index 4fe85e804f4..8b89b40bd0f 100644 --- a/kernel/perf_counter.c +++ b/kernel/perf_counter.c @@ -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); -- cgit v1.2.3