[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0d1e6e0f-6ab5-b5cf-8b17-65ca22087691@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 14:46:07 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, peterz@...radead.org,
acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, will@...nel.org,
catalin.marinas@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/7] driver/perf/arm_pmu_platform: Add support for BRBE
attributes detection
On 10/6/22 19:07, James Clark wrote:
>
> On 29/09/2022 08:58, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This adds arm pmu infrastrure to probe BRBE implementation's attributes via
>> driver exported callbacks later. The actual BRBE feature detection will be
>> added by the driver itself.
>>
>> CPU specific BRBE entries, cycle count, format support gets detected during
>> PMU init. This information gets saved in per-cpu struct pmu_hw_events which
>> later helps in operating BRBE during a perf event context.
>>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
>> ---
>> drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
>> index 933b96e243b8..acdc445081aa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
>> @@ -172,6 +172,36 @@ static int armpmu_request_irqs(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> +static void arm_brbe_probe_cpu(void *info)
>> +{
>> + struct pmu_hw_events *hw_events;
>> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = info;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Return from here, if BRBE driver has not been
>> + * implemented for this PMU. This helps prevent
>> + * kernel crash later when brbe_probe() will be
>> + * called on the PMU.
>> + */
>> + if (!armpmu->brbe_probe)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + hw_events = per_cpu_ptr(armpmu->hw_events, smp_processor_id());
>> + armpmu->brbe_probe(hw_events);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int armpmu_request_brbe(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>> +{
>> + int cpu, err = 0;
>> +
>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, &armpmu->supported_cpus) {
>> + err = smp_call_function_single(cpu, arm_brbe_probe_cpu, armpmu, 1);
> Hi Anshuman,
>
> I have LOCKDEP on and the patchset applied to perf/core (82aad7ff7) on
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git and I get
> this:
>
> armv8-pmu pmu: hw perfevents: no interrupt-affinity property, guessing.
> brbe: implementation found on cpu 0
>
> =============================
> [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
> 6.0.0-rc7 #38 Not tainted
> -----------------------------
> kworker/u8:0/9 is trying to lock:
> ffff000800855898 (&port_lock_key){....}-{3:3}, at:
> pl011_console_write+0x148/0x240
> other info that might help us debug this:
> context-{2:2}
> 5 locks held by kworker/u8:0/9:
> #0: ffff00080032a138 ((wq_completion)eval_map_wq){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> process_one_work+0x200/0x6b0
> #1: ffff80000807bde0
> ((work_completion)(&eval_map_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> process_one_work+0x200/0x6b0
> #2: ffff80000aa3db70 (trace_event_sem){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
> trace_event_eval_update+0x28/0x420
> #3: ffff80000a9afe58 (console_lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> vprintk_emit+0x130/0x380
> #4: ffff80000a9aff78 (console_owner){-...}-{0:0}, at:
> console_emit_next_record.constprop.0+0x128/0x338
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 9 Comm: kworker/u8:0 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc7 #38
> Hardware name: Foundation-v8A (DT)
> Workqueue: eval_map_wq eval_map_work_func
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace+0x114/0x120
> show_stack+0x20/0x58
> dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xd8
> dump_stack+0x18/0x34
> __lock_acquire+0x17cc/0x1920
> lock_acquire+0x138/0x3b8
> _raw_spin_lock+0x58/0x70
> pl011_console_write+0x148/0x240
> console_emit_next_record.constprop.0+0x194/0x338
> console_unlock+0x18c/0x208
> vprintk_emit+0x24c/0x380
> vprintk_default+0x40/0x50
> vprintk+0xd4/0xf0
> _printk+0x68/0x90
> arm64_pmu_brbe_probe+0x10c/0x128
> armv8pmu_brbe_probe+0x18/0x28
> arm_brbe_probe_cpu+0x44/0x58
> __flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x1d0/0x440
> generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x20/0x78
> ipi_handler+0x98/0x368
> handle_percpu_devid_irq+0xc0/0x3a8
> generic_handle_domain_irq+0x34/0x50
> gic_handle_irq+0x58/0x138
> call_on_irq_stack+0x2c/0x58
> do_interrupt_handler+0x88/0x90
> el1_interrupt+0x40/0x78
> el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x28
> el1h_64_irq+0x64/0x68
> trace_event_eval_update+0x114/0x420
> eval_map_work_func+0x30/0x40
> process_one_work+0x298/0x6b0
> worker_thread+0x54/0x408
> kthread+0x118/0x128
> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> brbe: implementation found on cpu 1
> brbe: implementation found on cpu 2
> brbe: implementation found on cpu 3
The LOCKDEP warnings are because of pr_warn/pr_info in arm64_pmu_brbe_probe()
which gets called from smp_call_function_single() context. I will drop these
prints, instead probably capture them in struct pmu_hw_events and display in
the caller itself.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists