Commit 2e556b5b authored by Don Zickus's avatar Don Zickus Committed by Ingo Molnar

perf, x86: Fix accidentally ack'ing a second event on intel perf counter

During testing of a patch to stop having the perf subsytem
swallow nmis, it was uncovered that Nehalem boxes were randomly
getting unknown nmis when using the perf tool.

Moving the ack'ing of the PMI closer to when we get the status
allows the hardware to properly re-set the PMU bit signaling
another PMI was triggered during the processing of the first
PMI.  This allows the new logic for dealing with the
shortcomings of multiple PMIs to handle the extra NMI by
'eat'ing it later.

Now one can wonder why are we getting a second PMI when we
disable all the PMUs in the begining of the NMI handler to
prevent such a case, for that I do not know.  But I know the fix
below helps deal with this quirk.

Tested on multiple Nehalems where the problem was occuring.
With the patch, the code now loops a second time to handle the
second PMI (whereas before it was not).
Signed-off-by: default avatarDon Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: robert.richter@amd.com
Cc: gorcunov@gmail.com
Cc: fweisbec@gmail.com
Cc: ying.huang@intel.com
Cc: ming.m.lin@intel.com
Cc: eranian@google.com
LKML-Reference: <1283454469-1909-2-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent b4c69d45
...@@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs) ...@@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
struct perf_sample_data data; struct perf_sample_data data;
struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc; struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
int bit, loops; int bit, loops;
u64 ack, status; u64 status;
perf_sample_data_init(&data, 0); perf_sample_data_init(&data, 0);
...@@ -728,6 +728,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs) ...@@ -728,6 +728,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
loops = 0; loops = 0;
again: again:
intel_pmu_ack_status(status);
if (++loops > 100) { if (++loops > 100) {
WARN_ONCE(1, "perfevents: irq loop stuck!\n"); WARN_ONCE(1, "perfevents: irq loop stuck!\n");
perf_event_print_debug(); perf_event_print_debug();
...@@ -736,7 +737,6 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs) ...@@ -736,7 +737,6 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
} }
inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs); inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
ack = status;
intel_pmu_lbr_read(); intel_pmu_lbr_read();
...@@ -761,8 +761,6 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs) ...@@ -761,8 +761,6 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
x86_pmu_stop(event); x86_pmu_stop(event);
} }
intel_pmu_ack_status(ack);
/* /*
* Repeat if there is more work to be done: * Repeat if there is more work to be done:
*/ */
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment