lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Bisect results for 4.4.1-rt[4,5]
From
Date
On 02/17/2016 09:14 AM, Tim Sander wrote:
> Hi Sebastian

Hi Tim,

> I have done a bisect run, its a rather innocent looking on liner which seems
> to cause the problems. The numbers where reasonably stable so i am pretty
> confident that this is the patch giving ~26µs additional latency on the Altera
> SOC plattform:
>
> eec2bf477ac674583a7d73b9d00f47c528b7266d is the first bad commit
> commit eec2bf477ac674583a7d73b9d00f47c528b7266d
> Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Date: Thu Feb 4 16:38:10 2016 +0100
>
> kernel/perf: mark perf_cpu_context's timer as irqsafe
>
> Otherwise we get a WARN_ON() backtrace and some events are reported as
> "not counted".
>
> Cc: stable-rt@vger.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

Seriously? That patch? I played a little and I doubt seriously that
this patch has something to do with it.
So before that patch you would have a warn_on spotted and complained if
that timer would fire. So that is one reason why I doubt that this
patch is in charge of the 25us.

If I add a printk() to that timer I don't see it under "normal"
circumstances. However I do
perf_4.3 stat -e
branches,branch-misses,bus-cycles,cache-misses,cache-references,cycles,instructions
apt-get update

then I see them fire.

> Best Regards
> Tim

Sebastian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-25 15:41    [W:0.058 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site