Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:11:59 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/29] x86/perfcounters: rework
	pmc_amd_save_disable_all() and pmc_amd_restore_all()
Message-ID: <20090429111159.GJ2373@elte.hu>
References: <1241002046-8832-1-git-send-email-robert.richter@amd.com> <1241002046-8832-5-git-send-email-robert.richter@amd.com> <1241003260.8021.236.camel@laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1241003260.8021.236.camel@laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1143
Lines: 33


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 12:47 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > MSR reads and writes are expensive. This patch adds checks to avoid
> > its usage where possible.
> 
> save_disable_all()
> enable(1)
> restore_all()
> 
> would not correctly enable 1 with the below modification as we do 
> not write the configuration into the msr, on which restore relies, 
> as it only toggles the _ENABLE bit.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure if that's really an issue, but its why the 
> does does as it does.
> 
> A better abstraction could perhaps avoid this issue all-together.

Could we remove the disable-all facility altogether and make the 
core code NMI-safe? The current approach wont scale on CPUs that 
dont have global-disable features.

disable-all was arguably a hack i introduced and which spread too 
far. Can you see a conceptual need for it?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/