Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:48:36 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 00:00 +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > From 8bb831af56d118b85fc38e0ddc2e516f7504b9fb 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 > > When perfctrs are running it is valid to have unhandled nmis, 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. > > The solution to avoid an 'unknown nmi' massage in this case was simply > to stop the nmi handler chain when perfctrs are runnning by stating > the nmi was handled. This has the drawback that a) we can not detect > unknown nmis anymore, and b) subsequent nmi handlers are not called. > > This patch addresses this. Now, we check this unknown NMI if it could > be a perfctr back-to-back NMI. Otherwise we pass it and let the kernel > handle the unknown nmi. > > This is a debug log:
> > Deltas: >
> nmi #32346 1462095 <<<< 1st nmi (standard) handling 2 counters > nmi #32347 2046 <<<< 2nd nmi (back-to-back) handling one counter > nmi #32348 1773 <<<< 3rd nmi (back-to-back) handling no counter! [3] > > For back-to-back nmi detection there are the following rules: > > The perfctr nmi handler was handling more than one counter and no > counter was handled in the subsequent nmi (see [1] and [2] above). > > There is another case if there are two subsequent back-to-back nmis > [3]. In this case we measure the time between the first and the > 2nd. The 2nd is detected as back-to-back because the first handled > more than one counter. The time between the 1st and the 2nd is used to > calculate a range for which we assume a back-to-back nmi. Now, the 3rd > nmi triggers, we measure again the time delta and compare it with the > first delta from which we know it was a back-to-back nmi. If the 3rd > nmi is within the range, it is also a back-to-back nmi and we drop it.
I liked the one without funny timestamps in better, the whole timestamps thing just feels too fragile.
Relying on handled > 1 to arm the back-to-back filter seems doable.
(Also, you didn't deal with the TSC going backwards..)
| |