Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754965Ab0HPQ1O (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:27:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:53516 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754872Ab0HPQ1L (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:27:11 -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=eNDTHQtAEQ5sSRZOVr9AShSniA95WYROEwx5NNG4YcqHmP0T0K7MJNc3HLMwdIMmJ3 XWx9c881CErUy666JVxMCv0WKH4KwQUEYLTMVaVwFMScGoVbpVMcUBJGgQDoG8wsUecQ K0nz1HJV9iHZZ9ut/Hwkk066alV3RnECwXSGw= Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:27:06 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Robert Richter , Don Zickus , Lin Ming , Ingo Molnar , "fweisbec@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Huang, Ying" , Yinghai Lu , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs Message-ID: <20100816162706.GH5805@lenovo> References: <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> <20100811220058.GT26154@erda.amd.com> <1281970116.1926.1495.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1281970116.1926.1495.camel@laptop> 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: 1960 Lines: 44 On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 04:48:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: ... > > There is another case if there are two subsequent back-to-back nmis > > [3]. In this case we measure the time between the first and the > > 2nd. The 2nd is detected as back-to-back because the first handled > > more than one counter. The time between the 1st and the 2nd is used to > > calculate a range for which we assume a back-to-back nmi. Now, the 3rd > > nmi triggers, we measure again the time delta and compare it with the > > first delta from which we know it was a back-to-back nmi. If the 3rd > > nmi is within the range, it is also a back-to-back nmi and we drop it. > > I liked the one without funny timestamps in better, the whole timestamps > thing just feels too fragile. > Me too, the former Roberts patch (if I'm not missing something) looks good to me. > > Relying on handled > 1 to arm the back-to-back filter seems doable. > It's doable _but_ I think there is nothing we can do, there is no way (at least I known of) to check if there is latched nmi from perf counters. We only can assume that if there multiple counters overflowed most probably the next unknown nmi has the same nature, ie it came from perf. Yes, we can loose real unknown nmi in this case but I think this is justified trade off. If an user need a precise counting of unknown nmis he should not arm perf events at all, if there an user with nmi button (guys where did you get this magic buttuns? i need one ;) he better to not arm perf events too otherwise he might have to click twice (and of course we should keep in mind Andi's proposal but it is a next step I think). > (Also, you didn't deal with the TSC going backwards..) > -- Cyrill -- 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/