lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf: arm_cspmu: Don't touch interrupt registers if no interrupt was assigned

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2024-04-05 11:33 pm, Ilkka Koskinen wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-07 7:31 pm, Ilkka Koskinen wrote:
>>>> The driver enabled and disabled interrupts even if no interrupt was
>>>> assigned to the device.
>>>
>>> Why's that a concern - if the interrupt isn't routed anywhere, surely it
>>> makes no difference what happens at the source end?
>>
>> The issue is that we have two PMUs attached to the same interrupt line.
>> Unfortunately, I just don't seem to find time to add support for shared
>> interrupts to the cspmu driver. Meanwhile, I assigned the interrupt to one
>> of the PMUs while the other one has zero in the APMT table.
>
> I suspected something like that ;)
>
>> Without the patch, I can trigger "ghost interrupt" in the latter PMU.
>
> An occasional spurious interrupt should be no big deal. If it ends up as a
> screaming spurious interrupt because we never handle the overflow condition
> on the "other" PMU, then what matters most is that we never handle the
> overflow, thus the "other" PMU is still useless since you can't assume the
> user is going to read it frequently enough to avoid losing information and
> getting nonsense counts back. So this hack really isn't a viable solution for
> anything.

IIRC, what happens is that kernel will disable the interrupt eventually
due to unhandled spurious interrupts making the "working" PMU also
useless.

Cheers, Ilkka

>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:30    [W:2.082 / U:2.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site