public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Borislav Petkov" <bp@suse.de>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@amacapital.net>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Robert Richter" <rric@kernel.org>,
	"Jacob Shin" <jacob.w.shin@gmail.com>,
	"John Stultz" <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	"Fr�d�ric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, spg_linux_kernel@amd.com,
	x86@kernel.org, "Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	"Andreas Herrmann" <herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com>,
	"Suravee Suthikulpanit" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	"Aravind Gopalakrishnan" <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
	"Fengguang Wu" <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	"Aaron Lu" <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] perf/x86/amd/power: Add AMD accumulated power reporting mechanism
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:42:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160121144233.GA16294@hr-amur2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160121090257.GC6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:02:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 03:04:38PM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
> > I just quickly looked at about the spinlock on -rt mode. Because
> > realtime linux kernel provides two kinds of spinlock, the original
> > spinlock_t will be replaced the one which is able to sleep, actually,
> > like mutex. And another one (you mentioned here, raw_spinlock_t) can
> > keep on non-sleep behavior, that is the real spinlock.
> > 
> > And my lock here also will be nested under perf_event_context::lock,
> > right?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> > > I have a lockdep patch somewhere that checks these ordering things; I
> > > should rebase and post that again.
> > > 
> > 
> > Can you CC me when you post that patch next time?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > > One should not use GFP_ATOMIC if at all possible, also no, -rt cannot do
> > > _any_ allocations from this site.
> > > 
> > 
> > OK, that's because allocation might sleep when IRQ disabled. That's
> > incorrect.
> 
> Right.
> 
> Its related to the above, the allocator locks are spinlock_t and as a
> consequence of them becoming a blocking lock, spin_lock_irq() will also
> no longer disable IRQs.
> 
> The CPU_STARTING notifier however will still be called with IRQs
> disabled because it is CPU bringup.
> 
> So on -rt even GFP_ATOMIC will no longer work here.
> 

OK, thanks to clarify it.

> > I draft an update diff that based on original patch, please take a
> > look.
> > 
> > 8<--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_power.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_power.c
> > index 69ef234..e71d993 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_power.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_power.c
> > @@ -46,10 +46,17 @@ static unsigned int cu_num;
> >  static u64 max_cu_acc_power;
> >  
> >  struct power_pmu {
> > -	spinlock_t		lock;
> > +	raw_spinlock_t		lock;
> >  	struct list_head	active_list;
> >  	struct pmu		*pmu; /* pointer to power_pmu_class */
> >  	local64_t		cpu_sw_pwr_ptsc;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * These two cpumasks is used for avoiding the allocations on
> > +	 * CPU_STARTING phase. Because power_cpu_prepare will be
> > +	 * called on IRQs disabled status.
> > +	 */
> > +	cpumask_var_t		mask;
> > +	cpumask_var_t		tmp_mask;
> >  };
> >  
> >  static struct pmu pmu_class;
> > @@ -126,9 +133,9 @@ static void pmu_event_start(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> >  	struct power_pmu *pmu = __this_cpu_read(amd_power_pmu);
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> >  	__pmu_event_start(pmu, event);
> > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> > @@ -137,7 +144,7 @@ static void pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> >  	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> >  
> >  	/* mark event as deactivated and stopped */
> >  	if (!(hwc->state & PERF_HES_STOPPED)) {
> > @@ -155,7 +162,7 @@ static void pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> >  		hwc->state |= PERF_HES_UPTODATE;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int pmu_event_add(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> > @@ -164,14 +171,14 @@ static int pmu_event_add(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> >  	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> >  
> >  	hwc->state = PERF_HES_UPTODATE | PERF_HES_STOPPED;
> >  
> >  	if (mode & PERF_EF_START)
> >  		__pmu_event_start(pmu, event);
> >  
> > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
> So for these 4 {start,stop,add,del} you can drop the irqsave/irqrestore
> thing as its guaranteed that IRQs will be disabled.
> 

OK, I will remove the lock.

> > +	cpumask_clear(pmu->mask);
> > +	cpumask_clear(pmu->tmp_mask);
> >  
> >  	for (i = 0; i < cores_per_cu; i++)
> > +		cpumask_set_cpu(i, pmu->mask);
> >  
> > +	cpumask_shift_left(pmu->mask, pmu->mask, cu * cores_per_cu);
> 
> Couldn't you simply use topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu) instead?
> 

Looks like we couldn't. That's because cores number per cu (compute
unit) is got by CPUID 0x8000001e EBX. That relies on the CPU hardware.

> >  
> >  static int power_cpu_init(int cpu)
> >  {
> > +	struct power_pmu *pmu = per_cpu(amd_power_pmu, cpu);
> > +	int i, cu;
> >  
> > +	if (pmu)
> > +		return 0;
> >  
> > +	cu = cpu / cores_per_cu;
> >  
> >  	for (i = 0; i < cores_per_cu; i++)
> > +		cpumask_set_cpu(i, pmu->mask);
> >  
> > +	cpumask_shift_left(pmu->mask, pmu->mask, cu * cores_per_cu);
> 
> topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu) again?
> 

Ditto.

Thanks,
Rui

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-21 14:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-14  2:50 [PATCH v2 0/5] perf/x86/power: Introduce AMD accumlated power reporting mechanism Huang Rui
2016-01-14  2:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] x86/amd: move nodes_per_socket into bsp_init_amd Huang Rui
2016-03-21  9:54   ` [tip:perf/urgent] perf/x86/amd: Move nodes_per_socket into bsp_init_amd() tip-bot for Huang Rui
2016-01-14  2:50 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] x86/amd: add accessor for number of cores per compute unit Huang Rui
2016-01-14  2:50 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] x86/cpufeature: add AMD Accumulated Power Mechanism feature flag Huang Rui
2016-03-21  9:55   ` [tip:perf/urgent] x86/cpufeature, perf/x86: Add " tip-bot for Huang Rui
2016-01-14  2:50 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] perf/x86: Move events_sysfs_show outside CPU_SUP_INTEL Huang Rui
2016-01-14  2:50 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] perf/x86/amd/power: Add AMD accumulated power reporting mechanism Huang Rui
2016-01-19 12:12   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-20  4:48     ` Huang Rui
2016-01-20  9:22       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-21  7:04         ` Huang Rui
2016-01-21  9:02           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-21 14:42             ` Huang Rui [this message]
2016-01-21 15:10               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-21 15:24                 ` Huang Rui
2016-01-21 15:51                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-21 16:59                 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-01-22  8:04                   ` Huang Rui
2016-01-22 17:51                     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-01-14  6:01 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] perf/x86/power: Introduce AMD accumlated " Borislav Petkov

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=20160121144233.GA16294@hr-amur2 \
    --to=ray.huang@amd.com \
    --cc=Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com \
    --cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com \
    --cc=jacob.w.shin@gmail.com \
    --cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rric@kernel.org \
    --cc=spg_linux_kernel@amd.com \
    --cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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