[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51DB1B75.8060303@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:05:09 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix interrupt handler timing harness
On 07/08/2013 11:08 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> I admit I have some issues with your patch and what it is trying to avoid.
> There is already interrupt throttling. Your code seems to address latency
> issues on the handler rather than rate issues. Yet to mitigate the latency
> it is modify the throttling.
If we have too many interrupts, we need to drop the rate (existing
throttling).
If the interrupts _consistently_ take too long individually they can
starve out all the other CPU users. I saw no way to make them finish
faster, so the only recourse is to also drop the rate.
> For some unknown reasons, my HSW interrupt handler goes crazy for
> a while running a very simple:
> $ perf record -e cycles branchy_loop
>
> And I do see in the log:
> perf samples too long (2546 > 2500), lowering
> kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000
>
> Which is an enormous latency. I instrumented the code, and under
> normal conditions the latency
> of the handler for this perf run, is about 500ns and it is consistent
> with what I see on SNB.
I was seeing latencies near 1 second from time to time, but
_consistently_ in the hundreds of milliseconds.
--
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