lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 09:48:29PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 06.08.10 10:21:31, Don Zickus wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 08:52:03AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
>
> > > I was playing around with it yesterday trying to fix this. My idea is
> > > to skip an unkown nmi if the privious nmi was a *handled* perfctr
> >
> > You might want to add a little more logic that says *handled* _and_ had
> > more than one perfctr trigger. Most of the time only one perfctr is
> > probably triggering, so you might be eating unknown_nmi's needlessly.
> >
> > Just a thought.
>
> Yes, that's true. It could be implemented on top of the patch below.
>
> >
> > > nmi. I will probably post an rfc patch early next week.
>
> Here it comes:
>

Thanks Robert! Looks good to me, one nit below.

> From d2739578199d881ae6a9537c1b96a0efd1cdea43 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:19:59 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs
>
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> index f2da20f..c3cd159 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -1200,12 +1200,16 @@ void perf_events_lapic_init(void)
> apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
> }
>
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, perfctr_handled);
> +
> static int __kprobes
> perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
> unsigned long cmd, void *__args)
> {
> struct die_args *args = __args;
> struct pt_regs *regs;
> + unsigned int this_nmi;
> + unsigned int prev_nmi;
>
> if (!atomic_read(&active_events))
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
> @@ -1214,7 +1218,26 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
> case DIE_NMI:
> case DIE_NMI_IPI:
> break;
> -
> + case DIE_NMIUNKNOWN:
> + /*
> + * This one could be our NMI, two events could trigger
> + * 'simultaneously' raising two back-to-back NMIs. If
> + * the first NMI handles both, the latter will be
> + * empty and daze the CPU.
> + *
> + * So, we drop this unknown NMI if the previous NMI
> + * was handling a perfctr. Otherwise we pass it and
> + * let the kernel handle the unknown nmi.
> + *
> + * Note: this could be improved if we drop unknown
> + * NMIs only if we handled more than one perfctr in
> + * the previous NMI.
> + */
> + this_nmi = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count);
> + prev_nmi = __get_cpu_var(perfctr_handled);
> + if (this_nmi == prev_nmi + 1)
> + return NOTIFY_STOP;
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> default:
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
> }
> @@ -1222,14 +1245,12 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
> regs = args->regs;
>
> apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);

If only I'm not missing something this apic_write should go up to
"case DIE_NMIUNKNOWN" site, no?

-- Cyrill


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-09 22:05    [W:0.206 / U:12.884 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site