[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikdRh48rf19d3vsd8pEJO0Tvqbnw9_Yd7FaQ3yB@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:06:09 +0200
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"gorcunov@...il.com" <gorcunov@...il.com>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"ming.m.lin@...el.com" <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: catch spurious interrupts after disabling counters
Robert.
Does it mean that with this patch, we don't need Don's back-to-back NMI patch
anymore?
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com> wrote:
> On 14.09.10 19:41:32, Robert Richter wrote:
>> I found the reason why we get the unknown nmi. For some reason
>> cpuc->active_mask in x86_pmu_handle_irq() is zero. Thus, no counters
>> are handled when we get an nmi. It seems there is somewhere a race
>> accessing the active_mask. So far I don't have a fix available.
>> Changing x86_pmu_stop() did not help:
>
> The patch below for tip/perf/urgent fixes this.
>
> -Robert
>
> From 4206a086f5b37efc1b4d94f1d90b55802b299ca0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:12:59 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] perf, x86: catch spurious interrupts after disabling counters
>
> Some cpus still deliver spurious interrupts after disabling a counter.
> This caused 'undelivered NMI' messages. This patch fixes this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> index 3efdf28..df7aabd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ struct cpu_hw_events {
> */
> struct perf_event *events[X86_PMC_IDX_MAX]; /* in counter order */
> unsigned long active_mask[BITS_TO_LONGS(X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)];
> + unsigned long running[BITS_TO_LONGS(X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)];
> int enabled;
>
> int n_events;
> @@ -1010,6 +1011,7 @@ static int x86_pmu_start(struct perf_event *event)
> x86_perf_event_set_period(event);
> cpuc->events[idx] = event;
> __set_bit(idx, cpuc->active_mask);
> + __set_bit(idx, cpuc->running);
> x86_pmu.enable(event);
> perf_event_update_userpage(event);
>
> @@ -1141,8 +1143,17 @@ static int x86_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
>
> for (idx = 0; idx < x86_pmu.num_counters; idx++) {
> - if (!test_bit(idx, cpuc->active_mask))
> + if (!test_bit(idx, cpuc->active_mask)) {
> + if (__test_and_clear_bit(idx, cpuc->running))
> + /*
> + * Though we deactivated the counter
> + * some cpus might still deliver
> + * spurious interrupts. Catching them
> + * here.
> + */
> + handled++;
> continue;
> + }
>
> event = cpuc->events[idx];
> hwc = &event->hw;
> --
> 1.7.2.2
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> Operating System Research Center
>
>
--
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