lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 05/24] perfmon: X86 generic code (x86)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:54:30PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 02:35:18PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > + */
> > > > + pfm_arch_resend_irq(ctx);
> > >
> > > Do we really need this whole NMI business ?
> >
> > Without it you cannot profile interrupts off regions well.
>
> Fair enough, but I doubt that this is a real solution.
>
> There is not even an attempt to avoid the obvious wrmrsl races, while
> there are several comments which explain how expensive wrmrsl is. In
> the NMI handler we enable the NMI right away. This might cause
> multiple NMIs for nothing when the NMIs hit between the manipulations
> of the counters. Not likely but can happen depending on the counter
> settings.
>
> Sending an self-IPI from NMI simply sucks: For every NMI we get an
> extra local interrupt and we have an extra of 2 * NR_ACTIVE_COUNTERS
> accesses to MSRs.

In newer Intel the counters can be reset/rearmed by accessing
only a few global control msrs. But it's probably still a problem
on other PMUs.

On the other hand it also has PEBS which allows at least some
profiling of irq-off regions without using NMIs.
>
> Designing that code to use lockless buffers instead is not really
> rocket science.

Lockless buffers are nasty, but it works in oprofile at least.

Taking out NMis in the first version at least seems like a reasonable
solution. After all you can still use standard oprofile where they work
just fine.

-Andi

--
ak@linux.intel.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-27 10:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans