[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170628175241.GH8252@leverpostej>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:52:41 +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 10:36:20AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > 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:
> >> > 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?
>
> We always either set sample_period or call PERF_EVENT_IOC_PERIOD (with
> an enormous number if we don't actually want an interrupt. See
> `PerfCounters::reset`, line 446.
Ah, thanks for the pointer.
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps sample_period is misleadingly named :) Alternatively, you
> could imagine it as sampling where we're only interested in whether
> the counter passed the sampling value or not.
Sure; it's just that I suspect the existing kernel behviour isn't
*quite* intentional, and I could easily see it getting broken in future,
e.g. if someone were to make is_sampling_event() check the attr for
sample types.
So we need to keep an eye on that, regardless.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists