lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 12/20] x86: perf: intel_pt: Intel PT PMU driver
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:49:33AM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 04:45:40PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> >> @@ -1528,6 +1528,14 @@ again:
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> + * Intel PT
> >> + */
> >> + if (__test_and_clear_bit(55, (unsigned long *)&status)) {
> >> + handled++;
> >> + intel_pt_interrupt();
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > How does the PT interrupt interact with the regular PMI? In particular
> > does it respect stuff like FREEZE_ON_PMI etc?
>
> It ignores the FREEZE_ON_PMI bit. I stop it by hand inside the PMI
> handler, so you can see parts of the handler in the trace if you're
> tracing the kernel.

Urgh, horrid that. Routing something to the same interrupt, sharing
status registers but not observing the same semantics for the interrupt
is a massive fail.

IIRC Andi was planning to start using FREEZE_ON_PMI to avoid the MSR
writes in intel_pmu_{disable,enable}_all(), this interrupt not actually
respecting that makes that non-trivial.

We already use FREEZE_ON_PMI for LBR, but for now PT and LBR are
mutually exclusive so that's not a problem, if we ever get those working
together this needs to get fixed.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-24 14:01    [W:0.483 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site