Re: Perf events/ARM

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm looking at adding support for the hardware performance counters in ARMv6
> using the new perf events framework. I have a simple setup that uses the
> counters on their own, but wrt the perf events framework:
> 
> 	- what are the requirements of set_perf_event_pending() and
> 	perf_event_do_pending()? As far as I can tell from sparc/x86/powerpc,
> 	set_perf_event_pending() triggers an interrupt that then calls
> 	perf_event_do_pending(). Does perf_event_do_pending need to run in
> 	interrupt context or could I use a soft IRQ if platforms don't have a
> 	spare IRQ?

softirq would be fine too i suspect - but then you need to increase the 
buffering of perf_pending_head, as multiple hardirqs could hit before 
the softirq processing has finished.

As that gets complex quick, an acceptable first-order approach would be 
to just ignore those lost events and run it from a softirq - i _think_ 
everything should be OK.

> 	- ARM does not have proper support for atomic64's. Other than
> 	performance, would there be any known problems with using the generic
> 	spinlocked atomic64's?

Not a problem at all. Even performance-wise they are pretty nice - Paul 
has done a nice job hashing it along 16 spinlocks - so for small SMP 
systems there should be no global cacheline bounce.

	Ingo