oprofile and ARM A9 hardware counter

[santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Shilimkar, Santosh)]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM, stephane eranian <eranian@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh
> <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh
>> <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote:
>>> ( Removing dead "linux-arm-kernel at lists.arm.linux.org.uk" and adding
>>> correct list
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM, stephane eranian <eranian@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, with Santosh's patch this is much better almost as expected, still
>>>> 10-15% off.
>>>>
>> [....]
>>
>>>> So the fix does help. I am wondering why we're not getting closer to
>>>> 10k samples. But that
>>>> may be due to some overhead somewhere in there.
>>>>
>>
>> There might be still a small corner case where few reads
>> might return the stale value. Counter need at least 1 32K
>> clock cycle for the sync. udelay is not accurate but
>> it will at least give min. 1/32768, so it should be
>> fine.
>>
>> May be you can try out below patch and see if it helps.
>>
>> Regards
>> Santosh
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/counter_32k.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/counter_32k.c
>> index 5f0f229..014d8bd 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/counter_32k.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/counter_32k.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>> ?#include <linux/err.h>
>> ?#include <linux/io.h>
>> ?#include <linux/clocksource.h>
>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>>
>> ?#include <asm/sched_clock.h>
>>
>> @@ -38,6 +39,8 @@ static void __iomem *timer_32k_base;
>>
>> ?static u32 notrace omap_32k_read_sched_clock(void)
>> ?{
>> + ? ? ? /* Counter might take 1 clock cycle for OCP sync */
>> + ? ? ? udelay(31);
>> ? ? ? ?return timer_32k_base ? __raw_readl(timer_32k_base) : 0;
>> ?}
> That's worse with this patch (on top of the previous one).
>
Thanks for the test. Forget about the last change