linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v3] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1295261505.28388.189.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:51:45 +0800
From:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v3] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu

On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:44 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 01:14 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> Lin,
> >
> > Hi, Stephane,
> >
> > Sorry for late response, I'm just back from vacation.
> >
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
> >> > +static void uncore_pmu_enable_all(int nmi_core)
> >> > +{
> >> > +       u64 ctrl;
> >> > +
> >> > +       ctrl = ((1 << UNCORE_NUM_GENERAL_COUNTERS) - 1) | MSR_UNCORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL_EN_FC0;
> >> > +
> >> > +       /* Route all interrupts to the first core that accesses uncore */
> >> > +       ctrl |= 1ULL << (48 + nmi_core);
> >> > +
> >> > +       wrmsrl(MSR_UNCORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL, ctrl);
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> Are you sure nmi_core is always between 0-3 on a 4-core system and 0-5
> >> on a 6-core system?
> >> In other words, is that what topology_core_id(raw_smp_processor_id()) returns?
> >
> > I just have a look at a 6-core system, the core id is not 0-5
> >
> > $ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep "core id"
> > core id         : 0
> > core id         : 1
> > core id         : 2
> > core id         : 8
> > core id         : 9
> > core id         : 10
> >
> > So we'd better route all the interrupts to the first core of the socket.
> >
> I recently realized the issue with 0,1,2,8,9,10. At the time I wrote the perfmon
> support for uncore, those systems did not exist. Sparse APIC id is a major pain
> for uncore PMU interrupt routine given the way UNC_GLOBAL_CTRL works.
> 
> Unfortunately, routing to core 0 (core_cpu_id=0) won't be enough in the
> presence of HOTPLUG CPU. Imagine I disable the first three 3 cores.
> Now you the cpu you have to play with are 8,9,10. You need to remap
> to a number between 0-5.

Good idea.

And I have confirmed that there are 6 interrupt target bits on my 6-core
Westmere machine, although documentation does not say this.

u64 val=0x3FULL << 48;
wrmsrl(MSR_UNCORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL, val);

Thanks,
Lin Ming

> 
> 
> > Thanks for the catch.
> > Lin Ming
> >
> >>
> >> Note that, unfortunately, I have not seen documentation that says on
> >> 6-core system
> >> UNC_GLOBAL_CTRL has 6 interrupt target bits, but it would make sense.
> >>
> >>
> >> Otherwise, you will get a kernel panic when you wrmsr UNC_GLOBAL_CTRL.
> >>
> >> > +
> >> > +       if (uncore->n_events == 1) {
> >> > +               nmi_core = topology_core_id(raw_smp_processor_id());
> >> > +               uncore->nmi_core = nmi_core;
> >> > +               uncore_pmu_enable_all(nmi_core);
> >> > +       }
> >
> >
> >


--
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/