Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1653256

Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter

From Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter
Date 2017-05-30 16:00 +0200
Message-ID <tMPQK-861-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <tKbNL-7U4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKGHT-49Y-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKH1f-4vB-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tMd8J-6Ob-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tMLDs-5ux-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:25:23AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 01:31:09PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Ultimately, I would like to see the watchdog move out of the PMU. That
> > is the only sensible solution.
> > You just need a resource able to interrupt on NMI or you handle
> > interrupt masking in software as has
> > been proposed on LKML.
> 
> So even if we do the soft masking, we still need to deal with regions
> where the interrupts are disabled. Once an interrupt hits the soft mask
> we still hardware mask.
> 
> So to get full and reliable coverage we still need an NMI source.

You would only need a single one per system however, not one per CPU.
RCU already tracks all the CPUs, all we need is a single NMI watchdog
that makes sure RCU itself does not get stuck.

So we just have to find a single watchdog somewhere that can trigger
NMI.

> I agree that it would be lovely to free up the one counter though.

One option is to use the TCO watchdog in the chipset instead. 
Unfortunatley it's not an universal solution because some BIOS lock
the TCO watchdog for their own use. But if you have a BIOS that
doesn't do that it should work.

> One other approach is running the watchdog off of _any_ PMI, then all we
> need to ensure is that PMIs happen semi regularly. There are two cases
> where this becomes 'interesting':

Seems fairly complex.

-Andi

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2017-05-28 22:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-30 11:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-30 16:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-30 18:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2017-05-30 18:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-30 19:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-30 19:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-30 20:00 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-30 21:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-30 21:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> - 2017-05-30 18:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP  counter Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-05-30 19:00 +0200

csiph-web