lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] ARCv2: entry: Reduce perf intr return path
From
Date

>> But I was choosing to ignore it mainly to reduce the overhead of a
>> perf intr in general. A subsequent real interrupt could go thru thru
>> the gyrations of preemption etc.
>
> So that's dangerous thinking... People that run a PREEMPT kernel
> generally tend to care about latency (esp. when combined with
> PREEMPT_RT).
>
> And ignoring a preemption point gets these people upset (and missed
> preemptions are a royal friggin pain to debug).

Which implies that this patch goes to trash ! Unless we think that running
instrumentation (perf) on production systems will not yield the same behavior in
general.

>>> What do you (on ARC) do about irq_work ?
>>
>> Nothing ATM.

What I meant was lack of support for arch_irq_work_raise(). But given that we
don't have NMIs (yet), this need *not* be a must as things could actually be
scheduled in the regular intr return path ? At any rate arch_irq_work_raise() is
not relevant for this discussion since NMIs are not involved.

> So the reason I'm asking is that some architectures that don't have NMIs
> call irq_work_run() at the very end of their perf-interrupt handler (ARM
> does this for instance).

But on ARC, we don't call irq_work_run() in perf intr return path and that seem to
imply it is broken - as in latency to service a perf induced preemption.

> And the thing is, _that_ can and does do things like wakeups and will
> thus require doing the PREEMPT thing.

Reassures that this patch has to go to trash anyways, but I'm more worried about
perf intr return for ARC in general.

>> Although I'm sure it is, can you please explain how irq_work is relevant in
>> the context of this patch.
>
> Since the perf interrupt (in general) cannot call a whole lot of things
> for it needs to assume running from NMI context, it needs to defer
> things to a more regular context. It does this with irq_work.

And so do places such as flush_smp_call_function_queue() where the cross-core IPI
could be an NMI.

> So for instance, when the output buffer reaches its watermark, we'll
> raise the irq_work to issue the wakeup of tasks that poll() on that.

Cool, thx for the explanation.
Perhaps I should put it in a Documentation/irq_work.txt pr some such !

Thx,
-Vineet

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-18 00:43    [W:0.053 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site