[PATCH v2 1/5] perf: Allow periodic events to alternate between two sample periods

[Mark Barnett]

On 1/21/25 13:01, Leo Yan wrote:
>>   	local64_set(&hwc->period_left, hwc->sample_period);
>>   
>> +	if (attr->alt_sample_period) {
>> +		hwc->sample_period = attr->alt_sample_period;
>> +		hwc->using_alt_sample_period = true;
>> +	}
> 
> My understanding it sets a short sample window for the first period.
> Would it initialize the `hwc->period_left` with the updated sample
> period?
> 

It sets the long period first: hwc->period_left is used to program the 
PMU when setting up the event, and hwc->sample_period is queued up as 
the next period to switch to.

>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * alt_sample_period cannot be used with freq
>> +	 */
>> +	if (attr->freq && attr->alt_sample_period)
>> +		goto err_ns;
>> +
> 
> It is good to validate parameters first. So move the checking before
> the adjustment for the alt sample period.
> 

Ack. Done.

>>   	/*
>>   	 * We do not support PERF_SAMPLE_READ on inherited events unless
>>   	 * PERF_SAMPLE_TID is also selected, which allows inherited events to
>> @@ -12763,9 +12788,19 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
>>   	if (attr.freq) {
>>   		if (attr.sample_freq > sysctl_perf_event_sample_rate)
>>   			return -EINVAL;
>> +		if (attr.alt_sample_period)
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>   	} else {
>>   		if (attr.sample_period & (1ULL << 63))
>>   			return -EINVAL;
>> +		if (attr.alt_sample_period) {
>> +			if (!attr.sample_period)
>> +				return -EINVAL;
>> +			if (attr.alt_sample_period & (1ULL << 63))
>> +				return -EINVAL;
>> +			if (attr.alt_sample_period == attr.sample_period)
>> +				attr.alt_sample_period = 0;
> 
> In theory, the attr.alt_sample_period should be less than
> attr.sample_period, right?
> 

Added some validation for this.