Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context

From	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context
Date	2016-10-10 15:30 +0200
Message-ID	<sqIOu-1Mr-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <skBG1-6fB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sobtD-5uk-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sobMZ-5Bt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sopwB-5XC-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sos1s-7LY-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:06:18AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 03:29:33PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> > > So it would be good to also explain why PPC needs this in the first
> > > place.
> > 
> > Unfortunately I don't really know the code, and the original author is AWOL.
> > 
> > But AFAICS perf_event_disable() is only called here:
> > 
> > 	if (!stepped) {
> > 		WARN(1, "Unable to handle hardware breakpoint. Breakpoint at "
> > 			"0x%lx will be disabled.", info->address);
> > 		perf_event_disable(bp);
> > 		goto out;
> > 	}
> > 
> > Which is where we cope with the possibility that we couldn't emulate the
> > instruction that hit the breakpoint. Seems that is not an issue on x86,
> > or it's handled elsewhere?
> 
> I don't think x86 ever needs to emulate things on hw breakpoint
> (although I could be mistaken), but I would expect ARM to maybe need
> so, and I couldn't find a disable there either.
> 
> Will?

We don't do any emulation, so no need for us to call perf_event_disable
in the hw_breakpoint "overflow" path. We do play some awful games to
fake up a single-step, but I don't think perf core needs to care about
it.

Will

Thread

Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-23 18:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2016-10-03 15:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-03 15:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2016-10-04 06:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-04 09:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-10-10 15:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2016-10-05 10:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2016-10-05 22:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-06 09:30 +0200
              [PATCHv2] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2016-10-06 14:40 +0200

csiph-web