lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
From
Date
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 01:44 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 22:04 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 20:46 +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 2. Uncore pmu NMI handling
> > > >
> > > > All the 4 cores are programmed to receive uncore counter overflow
> > > > interrupt. The NMI handler(running on 1 of the 4 cores) handle all
> > > > counters enabled by all 4 cores.
> > >
> > > Really for uncore monitoring there is no need to use an NMI handler.
> > > You can't profile a core anyways, so you can just delay the reporting
> > > a little bit. It may simplify the code to not use one here
> > > and just use an ordinary handler.
> >
> > OK, I can use on ordinary interrupt handler here.
>
> Does the hardware actually allow using a different interrupt source?
>
> > >
> > > In general since there is already much trouble with overloaded
> > > NMI events avoiding new NMIs is a good idea.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct node_hw_events *uncore_events[MAX_NUMNODES];
> > >
> > > Don't declare static arrays with MAX_NUMNODES, that number can be
> > > very large and cause unnecessary bloat. Better use per CPU data or similar
> > > (e.g. with alloc_percpu)
> >
> > I really need is a per physical cpu data here, is alloc_percpu enough?
>
> Nah, simply manually allocate bits using kmalloc_node(), that's
> something I still need to fix in Andi's patches as well.

I'm writing this like AMD NB events allocation.

Thanks,
Lin Ming

>
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The hw event starts counting from this event offset,
> > > > + * mark it to be able to extra future deltas:
> > > > + */
> > > > + local64_set(&hwc->prev_count, (u64)-left);
> > >
> > > Your use of local* seems dubious. That is only valid if it's really
> > > all on the same CPU. Is that really true?
> >
> > Good catch! That is not true.
> >
> > The interrupt handler is running on one core and the
> > data(hwc->prev_count) maybe on another core.
> >
> > Any idea to set this cross-core data?
>
> IIRC you can steer the uncore interrupts (it has a mask somewhere)
> simply steer everything to the first cpu in the nodemask?
>
>
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-24 10:57    [W:0.108 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site