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;
Message-ID: <1510356963.2515.5.camel@megha-Z97X-UD7-TH>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V0 2/3] perf/x86/intel/bm.c: Add Intel Branch Monitoring
 support
From:   Megha Dey <megha.dey@intel.com>
To:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        kstewart@linuxfoundation.org, yu-cheng.yu@intel.com,
        len.brown@intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, acme@kernel.org, jolsa@redhat.com,
        namhyung@kernel.org, vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com,
        pombredanne@nexb.com, me@kylehuey.com, bp@suse.de,
        grzegorz.andrejczuk@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        ravi.v.shankar@intel.com
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:36:03 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20171106114943.mg6pwpqe6eqlx7w2@ukko.fi.intel.com>
References: <1509732006-5917-1-git-send-email-megha.dey@linux.intel.com>
         <1509732006-5917-3-git-send-email-megha.dey@linux.intel.com>
         <20171106114943.mg6pwpqe6eqlx7w2@ukko.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 13:49 +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 11:00:05AM -0700, Megha Dey wrote:
> > +static int intel_bm_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> > +{
> 
> ...
> 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Find a hardware counter for the target task
> > +	 */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < bm_num_counters; i++) {
> > +		if ((bm_counter_owner[i] == NULL) ||
> > +			(bm_counter_owner[i]->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_DEAD)) {
> > +			counter_to_use = i;
> > +			bm_counter_owner[i] = event;
> > +			break;
> 
> How are two concurrent perf_event_open()s not going to race here?
> Also, I'm not sure what's the value of looking at the ->state here.
> Shouldn't the ->destroy() method clear the corresponding array slot?

Yes you are right. I will add a locking mechanism here to prevent racing
and remove the ->state in the next version.
> 
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> ...
> 
> > +	wrmsrl(BR_DETECT_COUNTER_CONFIG_BASE + counter_to_use,
> > +						event->hw.bm_counter_conf);
> > +	wrmsrl(BR_DETECT_STATUS_MSR, 0);
> 
> These wrmsrs will happen on whatever CPU perf_event_open() is called on,
> as opposed to the CPU where the event will be scheduled. You probably want
> to keep the MSR accesses in the start()/stop() callbacks.

Agreed, don't think we need this code here. We are writing to the MSRs
in start() anyways.
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Alex
> 


From 1583142257068794376@xxx Sat Nov 04 13:28:29 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583067906559816766
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread