Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 13:32:59 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kim.phillips@amd.com,
        acme@redhat.com, jolsa@redhat.com, songliubraving@fb.com,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, maddy@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] perf/x86/amd: add AMD Fam19h Branch Sampling
 support
Message-ID: <YZZH+5odIawPQtgJ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211111084415.663951-1-eranian@google.com>
 <20211111084415.663951-4-eranian@google.com>
 <YY6QBXs0sM16DdbV@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABPqkBShSBaJH+PR6rMkRRzjZAKN5zPhcdnLWx=4a-yQWxcA2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211116082923.GX174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABPqkBQ4BCswvNPpkO79dBamhudikz1cGCXFpwAp9xsTb3F8xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YZZE+bPCokVrTARM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YZZE+bPCokVrTARM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:20:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:23:39PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:

> > Ok, I made the changes you suggested. It looks closer to the way LBR is handled.
> > However, this means that there is no path by which you can get to
> > amd_pmu_disable_event()
> > without having gone through amd_pmu_disable_all(). Is that always the
> > case? And same thing
> > on the enable side.
> 
> So that's true for ->add() and ->del(), those cannot be called without
> being wrapped in ->pmu_disable(), ->pmu_enable().
> 
> There is however the ->stop() and ->start() usage for throttling, which
> can stop an individual event (while leaving the event scheduled on the
> PMU). Now, I think the ->stop() gets called with the PMU enabled, but
> the ->start() is with it disabled again.

I just looked, and the throttling depends on the PMU's PMI handler
implementation, for Intel it will have the PMU disabled, for generic and
AMD it has it enabled (see x86_pmu_handle_irq -- also these are really
NMIs but lets not do a mass rename just now).

> The ramification would be that we'd stop the event, but leave BRS
> enabled for a throttled event. Which should be harmless, no?