Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:23:26 +0200
From:   peterz@infradead.org
To:     Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, swboyd@chromium.org,
        sumit.garg@linaro.org, Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] arm64: perf: Defer irq_work to IPI_IRQ_WORK
Message-ID: <20200819142326.GE2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200819133419.526889-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
 <20200819133419.526889-5-alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200819133419.526889-5-alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:34:16PM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> From: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
> 
> When handling events, armv8pmu_handle_irq() calls perf_event_overflow(),
> and subsequently calls irq_work_run() to handle any work queued by
> perf_event_overflow(). As perf_event_overflow() raises IPI_IRQ_WORK when
> queuing the work, this isn't strictly necessary and the work could be
> handled as part of the IPI_IRQ_WORK handler.
> 
> In the common case the IPI handler will run immediately after the PMU IRQ
> handler, and where the PE is heavily loaded with interrupts other handlers
> may run first, widening the window where some counters are disabled.
> 
> In practice this window is unlikely to be a significant issue, and removing
> the call to irq_work_run() would make the PMU IRQ handler NMI safe in
> addition to making it simpler, so let's do that.

Makes sense, IIRC this code was written before ARM grew IPI_IRQ_WORK
support and then it makes sense, but now that you have it and are moving
to NMI-like context this is absolutely the right thing to do.