[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52656281-ab73-baf7-0a80-ebcbe79dfca2@maine.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [perf] unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0x3f1
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
> > No, the error message doesn't say it. Just want to check if you have
> > extra information. Because the Topdown perf metrics is only supported on
> > p-core. I want to understand whether the code messes up with e-core.
>
> I can't easily tell from the fuzzer as it intentionally switches cores
> often. I guess I could patch the kernel to report CPU when the WRMSR
> error triggers.
I've patched the kernel to get rid of the warn_once() and added a printk
for smp_processor_id() (is that what I want to print?) In any case that
reports the warning is happening on CPU1 which is actually a P core, not
an atom core.
Vince Weaver
vincent.weaver@...ne.edu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists