linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] arm: imx: Workaround i.MX6 PMU interrupts muxed to one SPI

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20141120164835.GQ4042@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:48:36 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm: imx: Workaround i.MX6 PMU interrupts muxed to
 one SPI

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:24:43PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 20/11/14 11:52, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > I've sent almost the same patch a while ago. At this time it was shot
> > down due to fears of the measurements being too flaky to be useful with
> > all that IRQ dance. While I don't think this is true (I did some
> > measurements on a SOLO and a QUAD variants of the i.MX6 with the same
> > workload, that were only minimally apart), I believe the IRQ affinity
> > dance isn't the best way to handle this.
> 
> Cumulative statistics and time based sampling profilers should be fine
> either way since a delay before the interrupt the asserted on the
> affected core should have a low impact here.

One thing you're missing is that the interrupt latency for this can be
horrific.

Firstly, remember that Linux processes one interrupt (per core) at a time.
What this means is that if we have two cores running interrupts (eg, CPU 2
and CPU 3), and we raise a PMU interrupt on CPU 1 which is supposed to be
for CPU 0, then we'll process the interrupt on CPU 1, and forward it to
CPU 2.  CPU 2 will then have it pending, but has to wait for the interrupt
handler to complete before it can service it, where upon it forwards it to
CPU 3.  CPU 3 then goes through the same before forwarding it to CPU 0.

I also wonder how this works when you use perf record -a (from all CPUs.)
If the sampling rate is high enough, will the interrupt be forwarded to
the other CPUs?  Has perf record -a been tested?

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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/