From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
gorcunov@gmail.com, Vince Weaver <vince@deater.net>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] x86/perf/amd: AMD PMC counters and NMI latency
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:03:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190402130302.GL12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <155415519143.24457.2706922532995302758.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 09:46:33PM +0000, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> This patch series addresses issues with increased NMI latency in newer
> AMD processors that can result in unknown NMI messages when PMC counters
> are active.
>
> The following fixes are included in this series:
>
> - Resolve a race condition when disabling an overflowed PMC counter,
> specifically when updating the PMC counter with a new value.
> - Resolve handling of active PMC counter overflows in the perf NMI
> handler and when to report that the NMI is not related to a PMC.
> - Remove earlier workaround for spurious NMIs by re-ordering the
> PMC stop sequence to disable the PMC first and then remove the PMC
> bit from the active_mask bitmap. As part of disabling the PMC, the
> code will wait for an overflow to be reset.
>
> The last patch re-works the order of when the PMC is removed from the
> active_mask. There was a comment from a long time ago about having
> to clear the bit in active_mask before disabling the counter because
> the perf NMI handler could re-enable the PMC again. Looking at the
> handler today, I don't see that as possible, hence the reordering. The
> question will be whether the Intel PMC support will now have issues.
> There is still support for using x86_pmu_handle_irq() in the Intel
> core.c file. Did Intel have any issues with spurious NMIs in the past?
> Peter Z, any thoughts on this?
I can't remember :/ I suppose we'll see if anything pops up after these
here patches. At least then we get a chance to properly document things.
> Also, I couldn't completely get rid of the "running" bit because it
> is used by arch/x86/events/intel/p4.c. An old commit comment that
> seems to indicate the p4 code suffered the spurious interrupts:
> 03e22198d237 ("perf, x86: Handle in flight NMIs on P4 platform").
> So maybe that partially answers my previous question...
Yeah, the P4 code is magic, and I don't have any such machines left, nor
do I think does Cyrill who wrote much of that.
I have vague memories of the P4 thing crashing with Vince's perf_fuzzer,
but maybe I'm wrong.
Ideally we'd find a willing victim to maintain that thing, or possibly
just delete it, dunno if anybody still cares.
Anyway, I like these patches, but I cannot apply since you send them
base64 encoded and my script chokes on that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-02 13:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-01 21:46 [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] x86/perf/amd: AMD PMC counters and NMI latency Lendacky, Thomas
2019-04-01 21:46 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] x86/perf/amd: Resolve race condition when disabling PMC Lendacky, Thomas
2019-04-01 21:46 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] x86/perf/amd: Resolve NMI latency issues for active PMCs Lendacky, Thomas
2019-04-01 21:46 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] x86/perf/amd: Remove need to check "running" bit in NMI handler Lendacky, Thomas
2019-04-02 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-04-02 13:09 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] x86/perf/amd: AMD PMC counters and NMI latency Lendacky, Thomas
2019-04-02 13:22 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2019-04-02 14:53 ` Vince Weaver
2019-04-02 15:09 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2019-04-02 21:13 ` Vince Weaver
2019-04-02 21:31 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2019-04-03 14:15 ` Vince Weaver
2019-04-03 14:27 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2019-04-03 15:00 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
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=20190402130302.GL12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vince@deater.net \
--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