On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:27:22PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> @@ -393,9 +386,8 @@ __hw_perf_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> /*
> * Check whether we need to exclude the counter from certain modes.
> */
> + if (armpmu->set_event_filter &&
> + armpmu->set_event_filter(hwc, &event->attr)) {
> pr_debug("ARM performance counters do not support "
> "mode exclusion\n");
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
This then requires all set_event_filter() implementations to check all
the various exclude options; also, set_event_filter() failing then
returns with -EOPNOTSUPP instead of the -EINVAL the CAP_NO_EXCLUDE
generates, which is again inconsitent.
If I look at (the very first git-grep found me)
armv7pmu_set_event_filter(), then I find it returning -EPERM (again
inconsistent but irrelevant because the actual value is not preserved)
for exclude_idle.
But it doesn't seem to check exclude_host at all for example.
> @@ -867,6 +859,9 @@ int armpmu_register(struct arm_pmu *pmu)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + if (!pmu->set_event_filter)
> + pmu->pmu.capabilities |= PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE;
> +
> ret = perf_pmu_register(&pmu->pmu, pmu->name, -1);
> if (ret)
> goto out_destroy;
> --
> 2.7.4
>
