On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:02:20PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 04:19:11PM -0500, kan.li...@intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Kan Liang <kan.li...@intel.com>
> > >
> > > On x86, NMI handler is the most important part which brings overhead
> > > for sampling. Adding a pmu specific overhead type
> > > PERF_PMU_SAMPLE_OVERHEAD for it.
> > >
> > > For other architectures which may don't have NMI, the overhead type
> > > can be reused.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.li...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/events/core.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > > arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 2 ++
> > > include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h | 1 +
> > > 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c index
> > > 9d4bf3a..de40f96 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> > > @@ -1397,6 +1397,9 @@ static void x86_pmu_del(struct perf_event
> > > *event, int flags)
> > >
> > > perf_event_update_userpage(event);
> > >
> > > + if ((flags & PERF_EF_LOG) && cpuc->nmi_overhead.nr)
> > > + perf_log_overhead(event, PERF_PMU_SAMPLE_OVERHEAD,
> > > +&cpuc->nmi_overhead);
> > > +
> > > do_del:
> > > if (x86_pmu.del) {
> > > /*
> >
> > That's not at all mentioned in the changelog, and it clearly isn't
> > nmi_overhead.
>
> Here it only records the overhead, not calculate.
It doesn't record anything, it generates the output. And it doesn't
explain why that needs to be in pmu::del(), in general that's a horrible
thing to do.
