[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf/x86: check ucode before disabling PEBS on SandyBridge
On 12.06.12 19:13:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 19:09 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > > Instead of registering a microcode notifier, why not checking the
> > > availability of pebs dynamically with each syscall in
> > > intel_pmu_hw_config()? It looks like intel_snb_verify_ucode() is not
> > > that much expensive. We can perform the check only if the event
> > could
> > > be for pebs and if pebs is broken. The check could be repeated when
> > > setting up a new event after ucode could potentially has been
> > updated
> > > (e.g. after bringing a cpu online or so).
> Because you then end up with a for_each_online_cpu() loop in there,
> that's not pretty and quite horrible on large systems when you need to
> create nr_cpus events.

But usually the check fails on the current cpu, no need to touch other
cpus in this case. for_each_online_cpu() would run only for the case
that there just was a ucode update and pebs is going to be enabled.
And for this rare case we could use locking.

> Furthermore, ucode update is the rare thing, creating events happens
> much more frequently.
> > That's what I had in my original version.
> Right, but you really need to check all cpus, not just the one you
> happen to run on or the boot cpu.

Once pebs is enabled no further checks are needed anymore, I think.


Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-12 21:14    [W:0.192 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site