mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-17 09:14:19 +08:00
perf, x86, nmi: Move LVT un-masking into irq handlers
It was noticed that P4 machines were generating double NMIs for each perf event. These extra NMIs lead to 'Dazed and confused' messages on the screen. I tracked this down to a P4 quirk that said the overflow bit had to be cleared before re-enabling the apic LVT mask. My first attempt was to move the un-masking inside the perf nmi handler from before the chipset NMI handler to after. This broke Nehalem boxes that seem to like the unmasking before the counters themselves are re-enabled. In order to keep this change simple for 2.6.39, I decided to just simply move the apic LVT un-masking to the beginning of all the chipset NMI handlers, with the exception of Pentium4's to fix the double NMI issue. Later on we can move the un-masking to later in the handlers to save a number of 'extra' NMIs on those particular chipsets. I tested this change on a P4 machine, an AMD machine, a Nehalem box, and a core2quad box. 'perf top' worked correctly along with various other small 'perf record' runs. Anything high stress breaks all the machines but that is a different problem. Thanks to various people for testing different versions of this patch. Reported-and-tested-by: Shaun Ruffell <sruffell@digium.com> Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1303900353-10242-1-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> CC: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
6c8a721327
commit
2bce5daca2
@ -1288,6 +1288,16 @@ static int x86_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
|
||||
|
||||
cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Some chipsets need to unmask the LVTPC in a particular spot
|
||||
* inside the nmi handler. As a result, the unmasking was pushed
|
||||
* into all the nmi handlers.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* This generic handler doesn't seem to have any issues where the
|
||||
* unmasking occurs so it was left at the top.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
|
||||
|
||||
for (idx = 0; idx < x86_pmu.num_counters; idx++) {
|
||||
if (!test_bit(idx, cpuc->active_mask)) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
@ -1374,8 +1384,6 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
|
||||
return NOTIFY_DONE;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
|
||||
|
||||
handled = x86_pmu.handle_irq(args->regs);
|
||||
if (!handled)
|
||||
return NOTIFY_DONE;
|
||||
|
@ -933,6 +933,16 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
|
||||
|
||||
cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Some chipsets need to unmask the LVTPC in a particular spot
|
||||
* inside the nmi handler. As a result, the unmasking was pushed
|
||||
* into all the nmi handlers.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* This handler doesn't seem to have any issues with the unmasking
|
||||
* so it was left at the top.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
|
||||
|
||||
intel_pmu_disable_all();
|
||||
handled = intel_pmu_drain_bts_buffer();
|
||||
status = intel_pmu_get_status();
|
||||
|
@ -950,11 +950,20 @@ static int p4_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
|
||||
x86_pmu_stop(event, 0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (handled) {
|
||||
/* p4 quirk: unmask it again */
|
||||
apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, apic_read(APIC_LVTPC) & ~APIC_LVT_MASKED);
|
||||
if (handled)
|
||||
inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* When dealing with the unmasking of the LVTPC on P4 perf hw, it has
|
||||
* been observed that the OVF bit flag has to be cleared first _before_
|
||||
* the LVTPC can be unmasked.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* The reason is the NMI line will continue to be asserted while the OVF
|
||||
* bit is set. This causes a second NMI to generate if the LVTPC is
|
||||
* unmasked before the OVF bit is cleared, leading to unknown NMI
|
||||
* messages.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
|
||||
|
||||
return handled;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user