powerpc/oprofile: Fix mutex locking for cell spu-oprofile

The issue is the SPU code is not holding the kernel mutex lock while
adding samples to the kernel buffer.

This patch creates per SPU buffers to hold the data.  Data
is added to the buffers from in interrupt context.  The data
is periodically pushed to the kernel buffer via a new Oprofile
function oprofile_put_buff(). The oprofile_put_buff() function
is called via a work queue enabling the funtion to acquire the
mutex lock.

The existing user controls for adjusting the per CPU buffer
size is used to control the size of the per SPU buffers.
Similarly, overflows of the SPU buffers are reported by
incrementing the per CPU buffer stats.  This eliminates the
need to have architecture specific controls for the per SPU
buffers which is not acceptable to the OProfile user tool
maintainer.

The export of the oprofile add_event_entry() is removed as it
is no longer needed given this patch.

Note, this patch has not addressed the issue of indexing arrays
by the spu number.  This still needs to be fixed as the spu
numbering is not guarenteed to be 0 to max_num_spus-1.

Signed-off-by: Carl Love <carll@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Maynard Johnson <maynardj@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Acked-by: Acked-by: Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>

1 files changed, 14 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c b/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c
index e1bd5a937f6c..7ba39fe20a8a 100644
--- a/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c
+++ b/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c
@@ -38,13 +38,26 @@ static int work_enabled;
 void free_cpu_buffers(void)
 {
 	int i;
- 
+
 	for_each_online_cpu(i) {
 		vfree(per_cpu(cpu_buffer, i).buffer);
 		per_cpu(cpu_buffer, i).buffer = NULL;
 	}
 }
 
+unsigned long oprofile_get_cpu_buffer_size(void)
+{
+	return fs_cpu_buffer_size;
+}
+
+void oprofile_cpu_buffer_inc_smpl_lost(void)
+{
+	struct oprofile_cpu_buffer *cpu_buf
+		= &__get_cpu_var(cpu_buffer);
+
+	cpu_buf->sample_lost_overflow++;
+}
+
 int alloc_cpu_buffers(void)
 {
 	int i;