Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1532031
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue |
| Date | 2016-11-29 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sIMTD-6Co-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sIzMJ-6iD-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
So caveat that I'm ill and cannot think much.. On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:26:46AM -0800, kan.liang@intel.com wrote: > Here, all the possible failure cases are listed. > Terms: > - new: current PMU counter value which read from rdpmcl. > - prev: previous counter value which is stored in &hwc->prev_count. > - in PMI/not in PMI: the event update happens in PMI handler or not. > Current code to calculate delta: > delta = (new << shift) - (prev << shift); > delta >>= shift; > > Case A: Not in PMI. new > prev. But delta is negative. > That's the failure case of Test 2. > delta is s64 type. new and prev are u64 type. If the new is big > enough, after doing left shift and sub, the bit 64 of the result may > still be 1. > After converting to s64, the sign flag will be set. Since delta is > s64 type, arithmetic right shift is applied, which copy the sign flag > into empty bit positions on the upper end of delta. > It can be fixed by adding the max count value. > > Here is the real data for test2 on KNL. > new = aea96e1927 > prev = ffffff0000000001 > delta = aea96e1927000000 - 1000000 = aea96e1926000000 > aea96e1926000000 >> 24 = ffffffaea96e1926 << negative delta How can this happen? IIRC the thing increments, we program a negative value, and when it passes 0 we generate a PMI. And note that we _ALWAYS_ set the IN bits, even for !sampling events. Also note we set max_period to (1<<31) - 1, so we should never exceed 31 bits. > Case B: In PMI. new > prev. delta is positive. > That's the failure case of Test 3. > The PMI is triggered by overflow. But there is latency between > overflow and PMI handler. So new has small amount. > Current calculation lose the max count value. That doesn't make sense, per the 31bit limit. > Case C: In PMI. new < prev. delta is negative. > The PMU counter may be start from a big value. E.g. the fixed period > is small. > It can be fixed by adding the max count value. Doesn't make sense, how can this happen?
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue kan.liang@intel.com - 2016-11-28 20:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2016-11-28 20:50 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-11-28 21:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2016-11-28 21:20 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-11-28 21:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-29 10:30 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-11-29 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-29 18:00 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-11-29 18:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-29 18:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2016-11-29 18:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-29 18:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2016-11-29 19:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> - 2016-11-29 19:40 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-11-29 20:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-29 20:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2016-11-29 21:40 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-11-29 21:40 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Odzioba, Lukasz" <lukasz.odzioba@intel.com> - 2016-12-02 14:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-05 11:30 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Odzioba, Lukasz" <lukasz.odzioba@intel.com> - 2016-12-05 12:30 +0100
RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue "Odzioba, Lukasz" <lukasz.odzioba@intel.com> - 2016-11-29 20:10 +0100
csiph-web