lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [regression 2.6.39-rc2][bisected] "perf, x86: P4 PMU - Read proper MSR register to catch" and NMIs
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:01:35AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 11:33 PM, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
>> I created a Bugzilla entry at
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33252
>> for your bug report, please add your address to the CC list in there, thanks!
>
> Here is a patch flying around which I tuned a bit, when all reporters confirm it
> works for them we could close the bug. Thanks.
>
> Cyrill
> --
> From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] perf, x86: fix unknown NMIs on a Pentium4 box v2
>
> When using perf on a Pentium4 box, lots of unknown NMIs would be generated.
> This is the result of a P4 quirk that is subtle. The P4 generates an NMI
> when the counter overflow and unlike other arches where the NMI is a one time
> event, the P4 continues to assert its NMI until clear by the OS.
>
> As a side effect to this quirk, the NMI on the apic is masked off to prevent
> a stream of NMIs until the overflow flag is cleared. During the perf
> re-design, this subtle-ness was overlooked and the apic was unmasked _before_
> the overflow flag was cleared. As a result, this generated an extra NMI on
> the P4 mchines.
>
> The fix is trivial, wait until the NMI is properly handled before un-masking
> the apic.
>
> Sadly, in the old nmi watchdog there was a note that explained this exact
> behaviour.
>
> v2: Unmask LVT entry iif IRQ being handled by perf subsystem and add a comment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
> ---
>
> Don, Shaun, Ming, I've tested it on my non-HT machine, so if you have a chance
> to test it on HT machine -- this would be a great thing!
>
> Don, note the version v2 changes, thanks. I've tuned the former a bit
> but left your From field untouched, are you OK with that?
>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> =====================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> +++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -1370,12 +1370,19 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_b
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
> }
>
> - apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
>
> handled = x86_pmu.handle_irq(args->regs);
> if (!handled)
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
>
> + /*
> + * Unmasking should be done after IRQ handled, otherwise
> + * there is a race between clearing of counter overflow
> + * flag and LTV entry unmasking (which might lead to double
> + * NMIs generation).
> + */
> + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
> +
> this_nmi = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count);
> if ((handled > 1) ||
> /* the next nmi could be a back-to-back nmi */

I had the first version of the patch running the test builds all night without
any NMIs. I installed this one and ran it through the case where I would
reliably get early NMIs and it still no NMIs.

So for v2:
Tested-by: Shaun Ruffell <sruffell@digium.com>

Thanks!


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-13 22:37    [W:0.053 / U:8.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site