From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,perf: Unmask LVTPC only if we have APIC supported
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:42:56 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100313134256.GB18623@lenovo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100313124036.GA17769@elte.hu>
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ingo reported
> > > > |
> > > > | There's a build failure on -tip with the P4 driver, on UP 32-bit, if
> > > > | PERF_EVENTS is enabled but UP_APIC is disabled:
> > > > |
> > > > | arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `p4_pmu_handle_irq':
> > > > | perf_event.c:(.text+0xa756): undefined reference to `apic'
> > > > | perf_event.c:(.text+0xa76e): undefined reference to `apic'
> > > > |
> > > >
> > > > So we have to unmask LVTPC only if we're configured to have one.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > > > CC: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
> > > > CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c | 2 ++
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
> > > > =====================================================================
> > > > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
> > > > @@ -365,8 +365,10 @@ static int p4_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_r
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > if (handled) {
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> > > > /* p4 quirk: unmask it again */
> > > > apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, apic_read(APIC_LVTPC) & ~APIC_LVT_MASKED);
> > > > +#endif
> > > > inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
> > >
> > > This ugly #ifdef looks like a workaround though. Why doesnt apic_write() map
> > > to nothing in that case?
> > >
> > > Ingo
> > >
> >
> > It is. I mean -- it maps to nothing if apic is disabled. But the scenario is
> > that no apic configured at all. Actually I wonder how this code is supposed
> > to work without apic support.
> >
> > Pehpaps better to make a p4 quirk helper here, since #ifdef at this point
> > looks ugly indeed.
> >
> > Don't apply it then. Will back with other solution.
>
> apic_write() is really just equivalent to a spin_lock() on UP without
> UP_IOAPIC set - it should do nothing. So if it does something and fails the
> build, then that should be fixed - not the P4 PMU code.
>
> Ingo
>
Looking at code a bit and config deps I think the former proposal with
#ifdef is minimal (in amount of changes) and sufficient. perf_event.c
uses #ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC for the very same reason.
The former issue with config dependencies is that we may need to compile
perf_event.c without CONFIG_LOCAL_APIC support at all (and this is a case
for which you've posted the config). CONFIG_LOCAL_APIC deps on X86_UP_APIC,
the config has no X86_UP_APIC support and as result -- no CONFIG_LOCAL_APIC and
no apic.o compiled.
So, as expected, no apic_write/read and friends there. We may introduce
apic_write/read weak(s) but this would only mess the code more and would
smell unpleasant I think :) .
All-in-once: unresolved external symbol here, which could be fixed either
by introducing dummy symbol, or conditional compilation. I think the second
is preferred if the issue is just one line code.
Or you mean something different and I took a wrong mind-path?
-- Cyrill
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-13 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-13 8:11 Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-03-13 12:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-13 12:32 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-03-13 12:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-13 12:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-13 13:42 ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]
2010-03-13 13:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-13 14:08 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-03-13 15:03 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-03-13 16:21 ` [tip:perf/core] x86, perf: " tip-bot for Cyrill Gorcunov
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=20100313134256.GB18623@lenovo \
--to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.m.lin@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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®