[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150624131648.GM3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:16:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, bp@...en8.de, brgerst@...il.com,
luto@...capital.net, oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, dvlasenk@...hat.com
Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/x86/intel: Fix PMI handling for Intel PT
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:58:36AM -0700, tip-bot for Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> @@ -371,12 +373,24 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
>
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
> +
> + /*
> + * Assuming that all exclusive events will share the PMI handler
> + * (which checks active_events for whether there is work to do),
> + * we can bump active_events counter right here, except for
> + * x86_lbr_exclusive_lbr events that go through x86_pmu_event_init()
> + * path, which already bumps active_events for them.
> + */
> + if (!ret && what != x86_lbr_exclusive_lbr)
> + atomic_inc(&active_events);
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
> void x86_del_exclusive(unsigned int what)
> {
> atomic_dec(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]);
> + atomic_dec(&active_events);
> }
>
This, conditional inc, unconditional dec.
This leads to active_events == 0 even though there's still the NMI
watchdog active generating NMIs.
I would say, drop the condition on inc, double inc isn't a problem as
long as we match with a double dec and that results in simpler code too.
--
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