[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806212223480.1591@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] x86/split_lock: Enable #AC exception for split
locked accesses
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:37:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 08:45:49AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > Currently we can trace split lock event counter for debug purpose. But
> >
> > How? A while ago I actually tried that, but I could not find a suitable
> > perf event.
>
> The event name is called sq_misc.split_lock. It's been supported in perf
> already.
So the obvious question is why not simply use that counter and capture the
IP which triggers the event?
I can see that this wont cover the early boot process, but there it's
enough to catch #AC once, yell loudly and then disable the thing. I'm not
seing the value of adding 1000 lines of code with lots of control knobs.
I might be missing something though and am happy to be educated.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists