[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1241003785.8021.248.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:16:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/29] x86/perfcounters: rework
pmc_amd_save_disable_all() and pmc_amd_restore_all()
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 12:47 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > MSR reads and writes are expensive. This patch adds checks to avoid
> > > its usage where possible.
> >
> > save_disable_all()
> > enable(1)
> > restore_all()
> >
> > would not correctly enable 1 with the below modification as we do
> > not write the configuration into the msr, on which restore relies,
> > as it only toggles the _ENABLE bit.
> >
> > That said, I'm not sure if that's really an issue, but its why the
> > does does as it does.
> >
> > A better abstraction could perhaps avoid this issue all-together.
>
> Could we remove the disable-all facility altogether and make the
> core code NMI-safe? The current approach wont scale on CPUs that
> dont have global-disable features.
>
> disable-all was arguably a hack i introduced and which spread too
> far. Can you see a conceptual need for it?
power suffers the same issue and simply iterates the things like amd
does now.
The thing is, with a global disable you get slightly better coupling, so
in that respect it might be nice to have.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists