From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 10/24] perf/x86/intel: Process arch-PEBS records or record fragments
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 10:04:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59321f8a-c804-4c0d-8941-3805c078d2c6@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98112b48-5ca6-4077-a842-83d1407f1860@linux.intel.com>
On 2/26/2025 11:45 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
> On 2025-02-26 4:35 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 01:20:37PM +0800, Mi, Dapeng wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, should that workaround have been extended to also include
>>>> GLOBAL_STATUS_PERF_METRICS_OVF in that mask, or was that defect fixed
>>>> for every chip capable of metrics stuff?
>>> hmm, per my understanding, GLOBAL_STATUS_PERF_METRICS_OVF handling should
>>> only be skipped when fixed counter 3 or perf metrics are included in PEBS
>>> counter group. In this case, the slots and topdown metrics have been
>>> updated by PEBS handler. It should not be processed again.
>>>
>>> @Kan Liang, is it correct?
>> Right, so the thing is, *any* PEBS event pending will clear METRICS_OVF
>> per:
>>
>> status &= x86_pmu.intel_ctrl | GLOBAL_STATUS_TRACE_TOPAPMI;
>>
> Yes, we have to add it for both legacy PEBS and ARCH PEBS.
>
> An alternative way may change the order of handling the overflow bit.
>
> The commit daa864b8f8e3 ("perf/x86/pebs: Fix handling of PEBS buffer
> overflows") has moved the "status &= ~cpuc->pebs_enabled;" out of PEBS
> overflow code.
>
> As long as the PEBS overflow is handled after PT, I don't think the
> above is required anymore.
>
> It should be similar to METRICS_OVF. But the PEBS counters snapshotting
> should be specially handled, since the PEBS will handle the metrics
> counter as well.
>
> @@ -3211,7 +3211,8 @@ static int handle_pmi_common(struct pt_regs *regs,
> u64 status)
> /*
> * Intel Perf metrics
> */
> - if (__test_and_clear_bit(GLOBAL_STATUS_PERF_METRICS_OVF_BIT, (unsigned
> long *)&status)) {
> + if (__test_and_clear_bit(GLOBAL_STATUS_PERF_METRICS_OVF_BIT, (unsigned
> long *)&status) &&
> +
> !is_pebs_counter_event_group(cpuc->events[INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_SLOTS])) {
> handled++;
> static_call(intel_pmu_update_topdown_event)(NULL, NULL);
> }
Yes, we still need to handle METRICS_OVF if fixed counter 3 and metrics are
not included into counter group. It ensure the metrics count can be updated
timely once PERF_METRICS MSR overflows.
Since there were more and more bits added into GLOBAL_CTRL_STAT MSR in
past several years, it becomes not correct to execute the below code in
BUFFER_OVF_BIT handling code.
status &= intel_ctrl | GLOBAL_STATUS_TRACE_TOPAPMI;
It unconditionally clears METRICS_OVF and other bits which could be added
in the future. This is incorrect and could introduce potential issues.
Combining Kan's change, I think we can change the code like this.
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 8ef5b9a05fcc..0cf0f95b1af4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -3192,7 +3192,6 @@ static int handle_pmi_common(struct pt_regs *regs,
u64 status)
struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
int bit;
int handled = 0;
- u64 intel_ctrl = hybrid(cpuc->pmu, intel_ctrl);
inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
@@ -3236,7 +3235,6 @@ static int handle_pmi_common(struct pt_regs *regs,
u64 status)
handled++;
x86_pmu_handle_guest_pebs(regs, &data);
static_call(x86_pmu_drain_pebs)(regs, &data);
- status &= intel_ctrl | GLOBAL_STATUS_TRACE_TOPAPMI;
/*
* PMI throttle may be triggered, which stops the PEBS event.
@@ -3269,12 +3267,17 @@ static int handle_pmi_common(struct pt_regs *regs,
u64 status)
/*
* Intel Perf metrics
+ * If PEBS counter group includes fix counter 3, PEBS handler would
update
+ * topdown events which is more accurate, it's unnecessary to
update again.
*/
- if (__test_and_clear_bit(GLOBAL_STATUS_PERF_METRICS_OVF_BIT,
(unsigned long *)&status)) {
+ if (__test_and_clear_bit(GLOBAL_STATUS_PERF_METRICS_OVF_BIT,
(unsigned long *)&status) &&
+
!is_pebs_counter_event_group(cpuc->events[INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_SLOTS])) {
handled++;
static_call(intel_pmu_update_topdown_event)(NULL, NULL);
}
+ status &= hybrid(cpuc->pmu, intel_ctrl);
+
/*
* Checkpointed counters can lead to 'spurious' PMIs because the
* rollback caused by the PMI will have cleared the overflow status
>
> Thanks,
> Kan
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-27 2:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-18 15:27 [Patch v2 00/24] Arch-PEBS and PMU supports for Clearwater Forest and Panther Lake Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:27 ` [Patch v2 01/24] perf/x86: Add dynamic constraint Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:27 ` [Patch v2 02/24] perf/x86/intel: Add Panther Lake support Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:27 ` [Patch v2 03/24] perf/x86/intel: Add PMU support for Clearwater Forest Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:27 ` [Patch v2 04/24] perf/x86/intel: Parse CPUID archPerfmonExt leaves for non-hybrid CPUs Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:27 ` [Patch v2 05/24] perf/x86/intel: Decouple BTS initialization from PEBS initialization Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 06/24] perf/x86/intel: Rename x86_pmu.pebs to x86_pmu.ds_pebs Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 07/24] perf/x86/intel: Introduce pairs of PEBS static calls Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 08/24] perf/x86/intel: Initialize architectural PEBS Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 09/24] perf/x86/intel/ds: Factor out common PEBS processing code to functions Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 10/24] perf/x86/intel: Process arch-PEBS records or record fragments Dapeng Mi
2025-02-25 10:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-25 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-26 5:20 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-26 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-26 15:45 ` Liang, Kan
2025-02-27 2:04 ` Mi, Dapeng [this message]
2025-02-25 20:42 ` Andi Kleen
2025-02-26 2:54 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 11/24] perf/x86/intel: Factor out common functions to process PEBS groups Dapeng Mi
2025-02-25 11:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-26 5:24 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 12/24] perf/x86/intel: Allocate arch-PEBS buffer and initialize PEBS_BASE MSR Dapeng Mi
2025-02-25 11:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-26 5:48 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-26 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-27 2:05 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-25 11:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-26 6:19 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-26 9:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-27 2:09 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 13/24] perf/x86/intel: Update dyn_constranit base on PEBS event precise level Dapeng Mi
2025-02-27 14:06 ` Liang, Kan
2025-03-05 1:41 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 14/24] perf/x86/intel: Setup PEBS data configuration and enable legacy groups Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 15/24] perf/x86/intel: Add SSP register support for arch-PEBS Dapeng Mi
2025-02-25 11:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-26 6:56 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-25 11:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-25 20:44 ` Andi Kleen
2025-02-27 6:29 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 16/24] perf/x86/intel: Add counter group " Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 17/24] perf/core: Support to capture higher width vector registers Dapeng Mi
2025-02-25 20:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-26 7:55 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 18/24] perf/x86/intel: Support arch-PEBS vector registers group capturing Dapeng Mi
2025-02-25 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-26 8:08 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-27 6:40 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-03-04 3:08 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-03-04 16:26 ` Liang, Kan
2025-03-05 1:34 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 19/24] perf tools: Support to show SSP register Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 20/24] perf tools: Enhance arch__intr/user_reg_mask() helpers Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 21/24] perf tools: Enhance sample_regs_user/intr to capture more registers Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 22/24] perf tools: Support to capture more vector registers (x86/Intel) Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 23/24] perf tools/tests: Add vector registers PEBS sampling test Dapeng Mi
2025-02-18 15:28 ` [Patch v2 24/24] perf tools: Fix incorrect --user-regs comments Dapeng Mi
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=59321f8a-c804-4c0d-8941-3805c078d2c6@linux.intel.com \
--to=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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