perf: Fix signed comparison in perf_adjust_period()
Frederic reported that frequency driven swevents didn't work properly and even caused a division-by-zero error. It turns out there are two bugs, the division-by-zero comes from a failure to deal with that in perf_calculate_period(). The other was more interesting and turned out to be a wrong comparison in perf_adjust_period(). The comparison was between an s64 and u64 and got implicitly converted to an unsigned comparison. The problem is that period_left is typically < 0, so it ended up being always true. Cure this by making the local period variables s64. Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: <stable@kernel.org> LKML-Reference: <new-submission> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
Родитель
58cc1a9e3b
Коммит
f6ab91add6
|
@ -1507,6 +1507,9 @@ do { \
|
|||
divisor = nsec * frequency;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (!divisor)
|
||||
return dividend;
|
||||
|
||||
return div64_u64(dividend, divisor);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -1529,7 +1532,7 @@ static int perf_event_start(struct perf_event *event)
|
|||
static void perf_adjust_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 nsec, u64 count)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
|
||||
u64 period, sample_period;
|
||||
s64 period, sample_period;
|
||||
s64 delta;
|
||||
|
||||
period = perf_calculate_period(event, nsec, count);
|
||||
|
|
Загрузка…
Ссылка в новой задаче