[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170323222303.GA9371@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:23:03 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: kan.liang@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
eranian@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf/x86: add sysfs entry to freeze counter on SMI
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 09:31:38PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:25:49AM -0700, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> > From: Kan Liang <Kan.liang@...el.com>
> >
> > When setting FREEZE_WHILE_SMM bit in IA32_DEBUGCTL, all performance
> > counters will be effected. There is no way to do per-counter freeze
> > on smi. So it should not use the per-event interface (e.g. ioctl or
> > event attribute) to set FREEZE_WHILE_SMM bit.
> >
> > Adds sysfs entry /sys/device/cpu/freeze_on_smi to set FREEZE_WHILE_SMM
> > bit in IA32_DEBUGCTL. When set, freezes perfmon and trace messages
> > while in SMM.
> > Value has to be 0 or 1. It will be applied to all possible cpus.
>
> So is there ever a good reason to not set this?
That means SMIs become invisible to most performance counters.
I don't think that's a good default. If the SMI takes 1% of my
cycles I want to see it.
The masking trick is mainly useful when doing --smi-cost
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists