mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Perf events/ARM
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:40:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1259678444.1697.487.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091201143105.GB1183@elte.hu>

On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 15:31 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm looking at adding support for the hardware performance counters in ARMv6
> > using the new perf events framework. I have a simple setup that uses the
> > counters on their own, but wrt the perf events framework:
> > 
> > 	- what are the requirements of set_perf_event_pending() and
> > 	perf_event_do_pending()? As far as I can tell from sparc/x86/powerpc,
> > 	set_perf_event_pending() triggers an interrupt that then calls
> > 	perf_event_do_pending(). Does perf_event_do_pending need to run in
> > 	interrupt context or could I use a soft IRQ if platforms don't have a
> > 	spare IRQ?
> 
> softirq would be fine too i suspect - but then you need to increase the 
> buffering of perf_pending_head, as multiple hardirqs could hit before 
> the softirq processing has finished.
> 
> As that gets complex quick, an acceptable first-order approach would be 
> to just ignore those lost events and run it from a softirq - i _think_ 
> everything should be OK.

Things like wakeups and ->event_limit might get delayed.

Delayed wakeups can be mitigated by larger buffers, delayed disable on
->event_limit is not something you can fix up.

Does your PMU generate regular interrupts or actual NMIs? If its normal
interrupts you can simply call perf_event_do_pending() at the
pmu-interrupt tail.

x86 does a self-ipi to get from NMI context into IRQ context as fast as
possible, simply because you cannot do very much from NMI context.

> > 	- ARM does not have proper support for atomic64's. Other than
> > 	performance, would there be any known problems with using the generic
> > 	spinlocked atomic64's?
> 
> Not a problem at all. Even performance-wise they are pretty nice - Paul 
> has done a nice job hashing it along 16 spinlocks - so for small SMP 
> systems there should be no global cacheline bounce.

Depends, again if your PMU generates NMIs a spinlock'ed version won't
work.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-01 14:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-01 12:04 Jamie Iles
2009-12-01 14:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-01 14:40   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-12-01 14:53     ` Jamie Iles

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1259678444.1697.487.camel@laptop \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=jamie@jamieiles.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®