[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YTHcXDhYDFsw9GQX@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:27:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, kjain@...ux.ibm.com, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software
events
On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 09:57:04AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> +static int
> +intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack(struct perf_branch_entry *entries, unsigned int cnt)
> +{
> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> +
> + intel_pmu_disable_all();
> + intel_pmu_lbr_read();
> + cnt = min_t(unsigned int, cnt, x86_pmu.lbr_nr);
> +
> + memcpy(entries, cpuc->lbr_entries, sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry) * cnt);
> + intel_pmu_enable_all(0);
> + return cnt;
> +}
Given this disables the PMI from 'random' contexts, should we not add
IRQ disabling around this to avoid really bad behaviour?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists