lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm/perf: Fix pmu percpu irq handling at hotplug.
Mark,

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 03:25:14PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 01:24:38PM -0700, Yabin Cui wrote:
> > If the cpu pmu is using a percpu irq:                                    
> >       
> > 1. When a cpu is down, we should disable pmu irq on                      
> > that cpu. Otherwise, if the cpu is still down when                        
> > the last perf event is released, the pmu irq can't                        
> > be freed. Because the irq is still enabled on the                        
> > offlined cpu. And following perf_event_open()                            
> > syscalls will fail.                                                      
> >
> > 2. When a cpu is up, we should enable pmu irq on                          
> > that cpu. Otherwise, profiling tools can't sample                        
> > events on the cpu before all perf events are                              
> > released, because pmu irq is disabled on that cpu.                        
>
> It also looks like if a CPU is taken down while events are active, a
> non-percpu interrupt will get migrated to another CPU, yet we don't
> retarget it if/when the CPU is brought back online. So we have at least
> three bugs with IRQ manipulation around hotplug.
>
> Rather than adding more moving parts to the IRQ manipulation logic, I'd
> rather we rework the IRQ manipulation logic to:
>
> * At probe time, request all the interrupts. If we can't, bail out and
> fail the probe.
>
> * Upon hotplug in (and at probe time), configure the affinity and
> enable the relevant interrupt(s).
>
> * Upon hotplug out, disable the relevant interrupt.
>
> That way we have fewer moving parts that need to interact with each
> other (e.g. we don't need to inhibit hotplug in places), and we know
> early whether things will or will not work.
>
> The {reserve,release}_hardware dance is largely a legacy thing that was
> there to cater for sharing the PMU with other subsystems, and we should
> be able to get rid of it.
>
> I'm taking a look at doing the above, but I don't yet have a patch.

Any update on this? I'd quite like to do *something* to fix the issues
reported here.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:57    [W:0.065 / U:0.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site