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:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:27:08 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, kjain@linux.ibm.com, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software
 events
Message-ID: <YTHcXDhYDFsw9GQX@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210902165706.2812867-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20210902165706.2812867-2-songliubraving@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210902165706.2812867-2-songliubraving@fb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 09:57:04AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:

> +static int
> +intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack(struct perf_branch_entry *entries, unsigned int cnt)
> +{
> +	struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> +
> +	intel_pmu_disable_all();
> +	intel_pmu_lbr_read();
> +	cnt = min_t(unsigned int, cnt, x86_pmu.lbr_nr);
> +
> +	memcpy(entries, cpuc->lbr_entries, sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry) * cnt);
> +	intel_pmu_enable_all(0);
> +	return cnt;
> +}

Given this disables the PMI from 'random' contexts, should we not add
IRQ disabling around this to avoid really bad behaviour?