Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf/x86/amd/uncore: Use hrtimer for handling overflows

[Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>]

On 4/10/2025 1:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 01:27:07PM +0530, Sandipan Das wrote:
>> Uncore counters do not provide mechanisms like interrupts to report
>> overflows and the accumulated user-visible count is incorrect if there
>> is more than one overflow between two successive read requests for the
>> same event because the value of prev_count goes out-of-date for
>> calculating the correct delta.
>>
>> To avoid this, start a hrtimer to periodically initiate a pmu->read() of
>> the active counters for keeping prev_count up-to-date. It should be
>> noted that the hrtimer duration should be lesser than the shortest time
>> it takes for a counter to overflow for this approach to be effective.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
>> index 010024f09f2c..ee6528f2189f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>  #define NUM_COUNTERS_NB		4
>>  #define NUM_COUNTERS_L2		4
>>  #define NUM_COUNTERS_L3		6
>> +#define NUM_COUNTERS_MAX	64
>>  
>>  #define RDPMC_BASE_NB		6
>>  #define RDPMC_BASE_LLC		10
>> @@ -38,6 +39,10 @@ struct amd_uncore_ctx {
>>  	int refcnt;
>>  	int cpu;
>>  	struct perf_event **events;
>> +	unsigned long active_mask[BITS_TO_LONGS(NUM_COUNTERS_MAX)];
>> +	int nr_active;
>> +	struct hrtimer hrtimer;
>> +	u64 hrtimer_duration;
>>  };
>>  
>>  struct amd_uncore_pmu {
>> @@ -87,6 +92,51 @@ static struct amd_uncore_pmu *event_to_amd_uncore_pmu(struct perf_event *event)
>>  	return container_of(event->pmu, struct amd_uncore_pmu, pmu);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static enum hrtimer_restart amd_uncore_hrtimer(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
>> +{
>> +	struct amd_uncore_ctx *ctx;
>> +	struct perf_event *event;
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>> +	int bit;
>> +
>> +	ctx = container_of(hrtimer, struct amd_uncore_ctx, hrtimer);
>> +
>> +	if (!ctx->nr_active || ctx->cpu != smp_processor_id())
>> +		return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Disable local interrupts to prevent pmu->start() or pmu->stop()
>> +	 * from interrupting the update process
>> +	 */
>> +	local_irq_save(flags);
>> +
>> +	for_each_set_bit(bit, ctx->active_mask, NUM_COUNTERS_MAX) {
>> +		event = ctx->events[bit];
>> +		event->pmu->read(event);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
>> +
>> +	hrtimer_forward_now(hrtimer, ns_to_ktime(ctx->hrtimer_duration));
>> +	return HRTIMER_RESTART;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void amd_uncore_start_hrtimer(struct amd_uncore_ctx *ctx)
>> +{
>> +	hrtimer_start(&ctx->hrtimer, ns_to_ktime(ctx->hrtimer_duration),
>> +		      HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED);
>> +}
> 
> So I know you copied this from the Intel uncore driver; but would not
> both be improved by using HRTIMER_MODE_HARD?
> 
> It makes no sense to me to bounce the thing to SoftIRQ only to then
> disable IRQs in the handler again. Not to mention that the whole SoftIRQ
> things delays things further, giving more room/time to reach overflow
> wrap.

Agreed. Will address this in v2 for both the drivers.