[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d66c1793-8498-b27b-8473-1685293550b4@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 13:35:47 +0800
From: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>, acme@...nel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, kan.liang@...el.com,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
Robert O'Callahan <robert@...llahan.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] perf/core: PMU interrupts dropped if we entered the
kernel in the "skid" region
Hi Kyle,
I understand your requirement. Sorry I don't know the detail of rr
debugger, but I guess if it just uses counter overflow to deliver a
signal, could it set the counter without "exclude_kernel"?
Another consideration is, I'm not sure if the kernel can accurately
realize that if the interrupt is to trigger sampling or just deliver a
signal. Userspace may know that but kernel may not.
Anyway let's listen to more comments from community.
Thanks
Jin Yao
On 6/28/2017 12:51 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Jin, Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In theory, the PMI interrupts in skid region should be dropped, right?
> No, why would they be dropped?
>
> My understanding of the situation is as follows:
>
> There is some time, call it t_0, where the hardware counter overflows.
> The PMU triggers an interrupt, but this is not instantaneous. Call
> the time when the interrupt is actually delivered t_1. Then t_1 - t_0
> is the "skid".
>
> Note that if the counter is `exclude_kernel`, then at t_0 the CPU
> *must* be running a userspace program. But by t_1, the CPU may be
> doing something else. Your patch changed things so that if at t_1 the
> CPU is in the kernel, then the interrupt is discarded. But rr has
> programmed the counter to deliver a signal on overflow (via F_SETSIG
> on the fd returned by perf_event_open). This change results in the
> signal never being delivered, because the interrupt was ignored.
> (More accurately, the signal is delivered the *next* time the counter
> overflows, which is far past where we wanted to inject our
> asynchronous event into our tracee.
>
> It seems to me that it might be reasonable to ignore the interrupt if
> the purpose of the interrupt is to trigger sampling of the CPUs
> register state. But if the interrupt will trigger some other
> operation, such as a signal on an fd, then there's no reason to drop
> it.
>
>> For a userspace debugger, is it the only choice that relies on the *skid*
>> PMI interrupt?
> I don't understand this question, but hopefully the above clarified things.
>
> - Kyle
>
>> Thanks
>> Jin Yao
>>
>>
>> On 6/28/2017 9:01 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>> Sent again with LKML CCd, sorry for the noise.
>>>
>>> - Kyle
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com> wrote:
>>>> cc1582c231ea introduced a regression in v4.12.0-rc5, and appears to be
>>>> a candidate for backporting to stable branches.
>>>>
>>>> rr, a userspace record and replay debugger[0], uses the PMU interrupt
>>>> to stop a program during replay to inject asynchronous events such as
>>>> signals. We are counting retired conditional branches in userspace
>>>> only. This changeset causes the kernel to drop interrupts on the
>>>> floor if, during the PMU interrupt's "skid" region, the CPU enters
>>>> kernel mode for whatever reason. When replaying traces of complex
>>>> programs such as Firefox, we intermittently fail to deliver
>>>> asynchronous events on time, leading the replay to diverge from the
>>>> recorded state.
>>>>
>>>> It seems like this change should, at a bare minimum, be limited to
>>>> counters that actually perform sampling of register state when the
>>>> interrupt fires. In our case, with the retired conditional branches
>>>> counter restricted to counting userspace events only, it makes no
>>>> difference that the PMU interrupt happened to be delivered in the
>>>> kernel.
>>>>
>>>> As this makes rr unusable on complex applications and cannot be
>>>> efficiently worked around, we would appreciate this being addressed
>>>> before 4.12 is finalized, and the regression not being introduced to
>>>> stable branches.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> - Kyle
>>>>
>>>> [0] http://rr-project.org/
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists