Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758088Ab0HKCpE (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:45:04 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:40398 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755796Ab0HKCpB (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:45:01 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=QCNrs4o+6owwxsaswA5W0g0lIzycflqyGki4qB29pbk+sfd7rnQikKvUgPcmT9HGtV /12bej1XwhDq9b8Y6g5AuYjuGQled8fJqrWPq/sVinH4n6d8ROhSuXNa6FjJlbKhz58B d1+0YHEVDaQHhInqp3y1eaQWCcUemPgHdRyoU= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:44:55 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Don Zickus Cc: Robert Richter , Cyrill Gorcunov , Peter Zijlstra , Lin Ming , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Huang, Ying" , Yinghai Lu , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs Message-ID: <20100811024451.GA26835@nowhere> References: <20100804155002.GS3353@redhat.com> <20100804161046.GC5130@lenovo> <20100804162026.GU3353@redhat.com> <20100804163930.GE5130@lenovo> <20100804184806.GL26154@erda.amd.com> <20100804192634.GG5130@lenovo> <20100806065203.GR26154@erda.amd.com> <20100806142131.GA1874@redhat.com> <20100809194829.GB26154@erda.amd.com> <20100810204856.GA16571@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100810204856.GA16571@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5040 Lines: 146 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:48:56PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 09:48:29PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > > On 06.08.10 10:21:31, Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 08:52:03AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > > > > > > I was playing around with it yesterday trying to fix this. My idea is > > > > to skip an unkown nmi if the privious nmi was a *handled* perfctr > > > > > > You might want to add a little more logic that says *handled* _and_ had > > > more than one perfctr trigger. Most of the time only one perfctr is > > > probably triggering, so you might be eating unknown_nmi's needlessly. > > > > > > Just a thought. > > > > Yes, that's true. It could be implemented on top of the patch below. > > I did, but the changes basically revert the bulk of your patch. > > > > > > > > > > nmi. I will probably post an rfc patch early next week. > > > > Here it comes: > > > > From d2739578199d881ae6a9537c1b96a0efd1cdea43 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Robert Richter > > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:19:59 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs > > On top of Robert's patch: > (compiled tested only because I don't have a fancy button to trigger > unknown nmis) > > From 548cf5148f47618854a0eff22b1d55db71b6f8fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Don Zickus > Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:40:03 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] perf, x86: only skip NMIs when multiple perfctrs trigger > > A small optimization on top of Robert's patch that limits the > skipping of NMI's to cases where we detect multiple perfctr events > have happened. Yeah, I think that's more reasonable. This lowers even more the chances of losing important hardware errors. One comment though: > > Signed-off-by: Don Zickus > > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c > index c3cd159..066046d 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c > @@ -1154,7 +1154,7 @@ static int x86_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs) > /* > * event overflow > */ > - handled = 1; > + handled += 1; > data.period = event->hw.last_period; > > if (!x86_perf_event_set_period(event)) > @@ -1200,7 +1200,7 @@ void perf_events_lapic_init(void) > apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI); > } > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, perfctr_handled); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, perfctr_skip); > > static int __kprobes > perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self, > @@ -1208,8 +1208,7 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self, > { > struct die_args *args = __args; > struct pt_regs *regs; > - unsigned int this_nmi; > - unsigned int prev_nmi; > + int handled = 0; > > if (!atomic_read(&active_events)) > return NOTIFY_DONE; > @@ -1229,14 +1228,11 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self, > * was handling a perfctr. Otherwise we pass it and > * let the kernel handle the unknown nmi. > * > - * Note: this could be improved if we drop unknown > - * NMIs only if we handled more than one perfctr in > - * the previous NMI. > */ > - this_nmi = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count); > - prev_nmi = __get_cpu_var(perfctr_handled); > - if (this_nmi == prev_nmi + 1) > + if (__get_cpu_var(perfctr_skip)){ > + __get_cpu_var(perfctr_skip) -=1; > return NOTIFY_STOP; > + } > return NOTIFY_DONE; > default: > return NOTIFY_DONE; > @@ -1246,11 +1242,21 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self, > > apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI); > > - if (!x86_pmu.handle_irq(regs)) > + handled = x86_pmu.handle_irq(regs); > + if (!handled) > + /* not our NMI */ > return NOTIFY_DONE; > - > - /* handled */ > - __get_cpu_var(perfctr_handled) = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count); > + else if (handled > 1) > + /* > + * More than one perfctr triggered. This could have > + * caused a second NMI that we must now skip because > + * we have already handled it. Remember it. > + * > + * NOTE: We have no way of knowing if a second NMI was > + * actually triggered, so we may accidentally skip a valid > + * unknown nmi later. > + */ > + __get_cpu_var(perfctr_skip) +=1; May be make it just a pending bit. I mean not something that can go further 1, because you can't have more than 1 pending anyway. I don't know how that could happen you get accidental perctr_skip > 1, may be expected pending NMIs that don't happen somehow, but better be paranoid with that, as it's about trying not to miss hardware errors. Thanks. -- 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/