[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170628171943.GF8252@leverpostej>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:19:44 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
Cc: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
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,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
Robert O'Callahan <robert@...llahan.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] perf/core: PMU interrupts dropped if we entered the
kernel in the "skid" region
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 09:46:43AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:51:00PM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Yes, this is a bug.
> >
> > As we're trying to avoid smapling state, I think we can move the check
> > into perf_prepare_sample() or __perf_event_output(), where that state is
> > actually sampled. I'll take a look at that momentarily.
> >
> > Just to clarify, you don't care about the sample state at all? i.e. you
> > don't need the user program counter?
>
> Right. `sample_regs_user`, `sample_star_user`, `branch_sample_type`,
> etc are all 0.
> https://github.com/mozilla/rr/blob/cf594dd01f07d96a61409e9f41a29f78c8c51693/src/PerfCounters.cc#L194
> is what we do use.
Given that, I must be missing something.
In __perf_event_overflow(), we already bail out early if
!is_sampling_event(event), i.e. when the sample_period is 0.
Your attr has a sample_period of zero, so something must be initialising
that.
Do you always call PERF_EVENT_IOC_PERIOD, or is something in the core
fiddling with the sample period behind your back?
It seems odd that an event without any samples to take has a sample
period. I'm surprised that there's not *some* sample_type set.
> > Is that signal delivered to the tracee, or to a different process that
> > traces it? If the latter, what ensures that the task is stopped
> > sufficiently quickly?
>
> It's delivered to the tracee (via an F_SETOWN_EX with the tracee tid).
> In practice we've found that on modern Intel hardware that the
> interrupt and resulting signal delivery delay is bounded by a
> relatively small number of counter events.
Ok.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists