[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230328115543.GA1159@willie-the-truck>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 12:55:43 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Jiucheng Xu <jiuchengxu@....com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@...ogic.com>,
Kelvin Zhang <kelvin.zhang@...ogic.com>,
Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>,
Chris Healy <healych@...zon.com>,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf/amlogic: Fix large number of counter issue
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 10:29:04AM +0800, Jiucheng Xu wrote:
>
> My Amlogic email box has some issues. Use my personal email
> <jiucheng.xu@....com> to reply.
>
> On 2023/3/27 22:10, Will Deacon wrote:
> > [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 07:54:02PM +0800, Jiucheng Xu wrote:
> > > When use 1ms interval, very large number of counter happens
> > > once in a while as below:
> > >
> > > 25.968654513 281474976710655.84 MB meson_ddr_bw/chan_1_rw_bytes,arm=1/
> > > 26.118657346 281474976710655.88 MB meson_ddr_bw/chan_1_rw_bytes,arm=1/
> > > 26.180137180 281474976710655.66 MB meson_ddr_bw/chan_1_rw_bytes,arm=1/
> > >
> > > Root cause is the race between irq handler
> > > and pmu.read callback. Use spin lock to protect the sw&hw
> > > counters.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiucheng Xu <jiucheng.xu@...ogic.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/perf/amlogic/meson_ddr_pmu_core.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/perf/amlogic/meson_ddr_pmu_core.c b/drivers/perf/amlogic/meson_ddr_pmu_core.c
> > > index 0b24dee1ed3c..9b2e5d5c0626 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/perf/amlogic/meson_ddr_pmu_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/perf/amlogic/meson_ddr_pmu_core.c
> > > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/perf_event.h>
> > > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > #include <linux/printk.h>
> > > +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> > > #include <linux/sysfs.h>
> > > #include <linux/types.h>
> > > @@ -23,6 +24,7 @@ struct ddr_pmu {
> > > struct pmu pmu;
> > > struct dmc_info info;
> > > struct dmc_counter counters; /* save counters from hw */
> > > + spinlock_t lock; /* protect hw/sw counter */
> > > bool pmu_enabled;
> > > struct device *dev;
> > > char *name;
> > > @@ -92,10 +94,12 @@ static void meson_ddr_perf_event_update(struct perf_event *event)
> > > int idx;
> > > int chann_nr = pmu->info.hw_info->chann_nr;
> > > + spin_lock(&pmu->lock);
> > Why doesn't this need the _irqsave() variant if we're racing with the irq
> > handler?
> >
> > Will
> I think meson_ddr_perf_event_update function is called with hard irq off.
> So update function couldn't be interrupted by irq handler. Right?
I'm just confused about the race, then. The commit message says you have a
race between an irq handler and a callback, which you fix with a spinlock
that isn't irq safe. So either the race is real and the lock needs to be
irqsafe, or the race is something else entirely, no?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists