Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:29:42 +0800 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu | From | Lin Ming <> |
| |
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Lin Ming <lin@ming.vg> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> wrote: >>> Lin, >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com> wrote: >>>> +static void uncore_pmu_enable_all(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + u64 ctrl; >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * (0xFULL << 48): 1 of the 4 cores can receive NMI each time >>>> + * but we don't know which core will receive the NMI when overflow happens >>>> + */ >>> >>> That does not sound right. If you set bit 48-51 to 1, then all 4 cores >>> will receive EVERY >>> interrupt, i.e., it's a broadcast. That seems to contradict your >>> comment: 1 of the 4. Unless >>> you meant, they all get the interrupt and one will handle it, the >>> other will find nothing to >>> process. But I don't see the atomic op that would make this true in >>> uncore_handle_irq(). >> >> Stephane, >> >> The interrupt model is strange, it behaves differently when HT on/off. >> >> If HT is off, all 4 cores will receive every interrupt, i.e., it's a broadcast. >> > That's if yo set the mask to 0xf, right?
Right.
> > In the perf_event model, given that any one of the 4 cores can be used > to program uncore events, you have no choice but to broadcast to all > 4 cores. Each has to demultiplex and figure out which of its counters > have overflowed.
This is what my upcoming v3 patches doing.
> >> If HT is on, only 1 of the 4 cores will receive the interrupt(both >> Threads in that core receive the interrupt), >> and it can't be determined which core will receive the interrupt. >> >> Did you ever observe this? >> > No because I never set more than one bit in the mask. > >> I tried to set the mask 0xff when HT is on, but kernel panics, because >> the reserve bits are set. > > Let me check on this. It would seem to imply that in HT mode, both threads > necessarily receive the interrupts. > > Was that on Nehalem or Westmere?
Nehalem.
Thanks, Lin Ming -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |