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 S1753031AbcJFHY2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 6 Oct 2016 03:24:28 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:47509 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750868AbcJFHY1 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 6 Oct 2016 03:24:27 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:24:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        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: <20161006072415.GF3568@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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>
 <20161005195338.GB28329@krava>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161005195338.GB28329@krava>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
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 09:53:38PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> 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

OK, can you resend the patch with updated Changelog that explains these
things?