From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754841AbcJETxo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:53:44 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58982 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753449AbcJETxn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:53:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:53:38 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic
 context
Message-ID: <20161005195338.GB28329@krava>
References: <1474466134-21823-1-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <20160923163747.GE5012@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161003132932.GA28947@krava>
 <20161003134740.GC3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <87shsc4tzm.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
 <20161005080921.GB6467@krava>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161005080921.GB6467@krava>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Wed, 05 Oct 2016 19:53:42 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:09:21AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 03:29:33PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > Which is where we cope with the possibility that we couldn't emulate the
> > instruction that hit the breakpoint. Seems that is not an issue on x86,
> > or it's handled elsewhere?
> > 
> > We should fix emulate_step() if it failed to emulate something it
> > should have, but there will always be the possibility that it fails.
> > 
> > Instead of calling perf_event_disable() we could just add a flag to
> > arch_hw_breakpoint that says we hit an error on the event, and block
> > reinstalling it in arch_install_hw_breakpoint().
> 
> ok, might be easier.. I'll check on that

so staring on that I think disabling is the right way here.. 

we need the event to be unscheduled and not scheduled back
again, I don't see better way at the moment

jirka