linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Cc: maddy@linux.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org
Subject: [PATCH] powerpc/perf: Add missing break in power7_marked_instr_event()
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:41:11 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180920094111.4125-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au> (raw)

In power7_marked_instr_event() there is a switch case that is missing
a break or an explicit fallthrough, it's not immediately clear which
it should be.

The function determines based on the PMU event code, whether the event
is a "marked" event (which then requires us to configure the PMU in a
certain way). On Power7 there is no specific bit(s) in the event to
tell us that, we just have to know.

Rather than having a full list of every event and whether they are
marked, we pull apart the event code and for events with certain
values of certain fields we can say that those are all marked events.

We take the psel (bits 0-7) of the event, and look at bits 4-7. For a
value of 6 we say that if the entire psel == 0x64 then if the pmc == 3
the event is marked, else not, and otherwise we continue.

It is then that we fallthrough to the 8 case, where we return true if
the unit == 0xd.

The question is should the 6 case also fallthrough and check for
unit == 0xd, or should it return.

Looking at the full list of events we see that there are zero events
where (psel >> 4) == 0x6 and unit == 0xd.

So the answer is it doesn't really matter, there are no valid event
codes that will return a different result whether we fallthrough or
break.

But equally, testing the 6 case events against unit == 0xd is slightly
bogus, as there are no such events. So to make the code clearer, and
avoid any future confusion, have the 6 case break rather than falling
through.

Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
---
 arch/powerpc/perf/power7-pmu.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/power7-pmu.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/power7-pmu.c
index 7963658dbc22..6dbae9884ec4 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/perf/power7-pmu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/power7-pmu.c
@@ -238,6 +238,7 @@ static int power7_marked_instr_event(u64 event)
 	case 6:
 		if (psel == 0x64)
 			return pmc >= 3;
+		break;
 	case 8:
 		return unit == 0xd;
 	}
-- 
2.17.1

             reply	other threads:[~2018-09-20  9:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-20  9:41 Michael Ellerman [this message]
2018-09-20  9:59 ` [PATCH] powerpc/perf: Add missing break in power7_marked_instr_event() Madhavan Srinivasan
2018-09-20 14:47   ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-09-24  7:03     ` Michael Ellerman
2018-09-24  7:05     ` Madhavan Srinivasan
2018-10-04  6:14 ` Michael Ellerman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180920094111.4125-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --to=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).