Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 18:09:36 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To:     Vince Weaver <vince@deater.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] x86/perf/amd: AMD PMC counters and NMI latency
Message-ID: <20190402150936.GB23501@uranus>
References: <155415519143.24457.2706922532995302758.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>
 <20190402130302.GL12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190402132200.GA23501@uranus>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904021050090.15645@pianoman.cluster.toy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904021050090.15645@pianoman.cluster.toy>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:53:38AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:03:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I have vague memories of the P4 thing crashing with Vince's perf_fuzzer,
> > > but maybe I'm wrong.
> > 
> > No, you're correct. p4 was crashing many times before we manage to make
> > it more-less stable. The main problem though that to find working p4 box
> > is really a problem.
> 
> I do have some a functioning p4 system I can test on.
> I can easily run the fuzzer and report crashes, but I only have limited 
> time/skills to actually fix the problems it turns up.

You know, running fuzzer on p4 might worth in anycase. As to potential
problems to fix -- i could try find some time slot for, still quite
limited too 'cause of many other duties :(

> One nice thing is that as of Linux 5.0 *finally* the fuzzer can run 
> indefinitely on most modern Intel chips without crashing (still triggers a 
> few warnings).  So finally we have the ability to tell when a new crash is 
> a regression and potentially can bisect it.  Although obviously this 
> doesn't necessarily apply to the p4.
> 
> I do think the number of people trying to run perf on a p4 is probably 
> pretty small these days.

Quite agree. Moreover current p4 perf code doesn't cover all potential
functionality (for example cascaded counters) and nobody ever complained
about it, I think exactly because not that many p4 boxes left and putting
efforts into this perf module development doesn't look like a good investment,
better to stick with more modern cpus and deprecate p4 with small steps.