Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756979AbcLORLO (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:11:14 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:43766 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757017AbcLORLK (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:11:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:10:08 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Stephane Eranian Cc: Jiri Olsa , Andi Kleen , LKML , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , "mingo@elte.hu" , "Liang, Kan" , Namhyung Kim , Adrian Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf/x86/pebs: add workaround for broken OVFL status on HSW Message-ID: <20161215171008.GX3124@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20160308210707.GG6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160310104236.GV6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20161214175552.GW3207@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20161215084213.GV3124@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2141 Lines: 50 On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 08:59:56AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:26:49PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > > >> > Just spotted this again, ping? > >> > > >> Ok, on what processor running what command, so I can try and reproduce? > > > > For me its more of a correctness issue, i've not actually spotted a > > problem as such. > > > > But every time I read this code it makes me wonder. > > > > Supposing that the hardware sets the CTRL overflow flags but hasn't > > generated the PEBS record yet (or not enough records to reach the PEBS > > buffer threshold) we still don't want to process these events as if they > > were !PEBS. > > > I am suspicious about the case where you have multiple PEBS events and > they do not quite fire at the same time but close enough that you may have > PEBS in-flight by the time you enter handle_irq. > > Last night I ran a simple test on SKL using tip.git: > > $ perf record --e > cpu/event=0xd0,umask=0x81/upp,cpu/event=0xc0,umask=1/upp,cpu/event=0xd0,umask=0x81/upp > multichase; perf report -D | fgrep SAMPLE | grep -v 'IP, 0x4' | grep > -v events > > Basically, looking for samples missing the EXACT tag, i.e., samples > processed a regular event when I only have PEBS events. Over 8h, I got > about 3 or 4 such samples. So there is still a condition where we see > the overflow as regular and not PEBS. So we need to examine that code > again looking for possible race with PEBS in flight and not having the > PEBS overflow bits yet. Isn't that exactly the case I was talking about? and would be avoided by the proposed patch? So semantically the counter overflows and then arms PEBS to record a record on the next event once its armed (and this can be multiple events after the overflow, since arming takes a while too). Now, if the chip manages to raise the regular overflow bit during that time, you get exactly what is described. meaning we should unconditionally clear the pebs_enabled.