[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1510611246.2515.8.camel@megha-Z97X-UD7-TH>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:14:06 -0800
From: Megha Dey <megha.dey@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"kstewart@...uxfoundation.org" <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com" <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
"pombredanne@...b.com" <pombredanne@...b.com>,
"me@...ehuey.com" <me@...ehuey.com>, "bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
"Andrejczuk, Grzegorz" <grzegorz.andrejczuk@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 2/3] perf/x86/intel/bm.c: Add Intel Branch Monitoring
support
On Mon, 2017-11-13 at 21:25 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Dey, Megha wrote:
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org]
> > >Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:00 AM
> > >To: Megha Dey <megha.dey@...ux.intel.com>
> > >Cc: x86@...nel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-
>
> Please fix your mail client so it does not add this complete useless
> information to the reply.
Will fix this.
>
> > >On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:20:05PM -0800, Megha Dey wrote:
> > >> +/*
> > >> + * Unmask the NMI bit of the local APIC the first time task is
> > >> +scheduled
> > >> + * on a particular CPU.
> > >> + */
> > >> +static void intel_bm_unmask_nmi(void) {
> > >> + this_cpu_write(bm_unmask_apic, 0);
> > >> +
> > >> + if (!(this_cpu_read(bm_unmask_apic))) {
> > >> + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
> > >> + this_cpu_inc(bm_unmask_apic);
> > >> + }
> > >> +}
> > >
> > >What? Why?
> >
>
> > Normally, other drivers using perf create an event on every CPU (thereby
> > calling perf_init on every CPU), where this bit(APIC_DM_NMI)is explicitly
> > unmasked. In our driver, we do not do this (since we are worried only
> > about a particular task) and hence this bit is only disabled on the local
> > APIC where the perf event is initialized.
> >
> > As such, if the task is scheduled out to some other CPU, this bit is set
> > and hence would stop the interrupt from reaching the processing core.
>
> Still that code makes no sense at all and certainly does not do what you
> claim it does:
>
> > >> + this_cpu_write(bm_unmask_apic, 0);
> > >> +
> > >> + if (!(this_cpu_read(bm_unmask_apic))) {
>
> So first you write the per cpu variable to 0 and then you check whether it
> is zero, which is pointless obviously.
yes, I see your point. The logic is flawed. Will fix this.
>
> > >
> > >> +static int intel_bm_event_add(struct perf_event *event, int mode) {
>
> Please move the opening bracket of the function into the next line. See the
> kernel coding style documentation.
Will do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists