Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: catch spurious interrupts after disablingcounters

[Robert Richter]

> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:21:10PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > When you do perf record foo, it's equivalent to
> > perf record -e cycles:uk -F 1000 foo

Yes, thanks.

I am asking because I have observed up to 4 back-to-back nmis from the
same counter when enabling an event. The period is not yet adjusted.
We should avoid those short sampling periods in the beginning and
better start with too long periods. Didn't look at the implementation
so far. I know this is not easy to handle because this very much
depends on the event we measure.

Maybe we start the counter with a delay and then calculate period =
duration - delay, later decreasing the delay until the frequency is
adjusted but keeping the total sampling rate more or less constant.

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/