From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Milton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: Entry conditions for perf_event_do_pending?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:27:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1263374859.4244.192.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100113041445.GA17829@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 15:14 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> We're seeing some perf-related crashes on powerpc related to having
> irqs in an inconsistent state (soft-enable vs. hard-enable
> vs. trace-irqs state) when entering perf_event_do_pending().
> We're fixing that, but along the way we have struck a question about
> what conditions are required on entry to perf_event_do_pending.
>
> Its use of __get_cpu_var implies that it at least needs to be called
> with either interrupts or preemption disabled. Does it in fact need
> to be called with irqs off? Do we need to call irq_enter()/irq_exit()
> around it? Are there any other requirements that people can think of?
Right, so when I wrote it all it required was preempt disabled, but then
I added all that disable stuff (perf_pending_event():
event->pending_disable) and that requires IRQs disabled because it calls
__perf_event_disable() which takes ctx->lock, which is supposed to be an
IRQ safe lock.
On x86 we always run it from a self-ipi, which is I guess why the
generic timer softirq callback never triggered for me, because that
looks broken.
So in short, I think perf_event_do_pending() requires full IRQ context,
if that includes calling irq_enter()/irq_exit() then yes.
Something like the below ought to do I guess..
---
kernel/timer.c | 3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
index 15533b7..c61a794 100644
--- a/kernel/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/timer.c
@@ -1198,6 +1198,7 @@ void update_process_times(int user_tick)
run_local_timers();
rcu_check_callbacks(cpu, user_tick);
printk_tick();
+ perf_event_do_pending();
scheduler_tick();
run_posix_cpu_timers(p);
}
@@ -1209,8 +1210,6 @@ static void run_timer_softirq(struct softirq_action *h)
{
struct tvec_base *base = __get_cpu_var(tvec_bases);
- perf_event_do_pending();
-
hrtimer_run_pending();
if (time_after_eq(jiffies, base->timer_jiffies))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-13 9:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-13 4:14 Entry conditions for perf_event_do_pending? Paul Mackerras
2010-01-13 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-01-21 13:54 ` [tip:perf/urgent] perf: Fix perf_event_do_pending() fallback callsite tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1263374859.4244.192.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miltonm@bga.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox