Re: [PATCH 04/29] x86/perfcounters: reworkpmc_amd_save_disable_all() and pmc_amd_restore_all()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 12:47 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > MSR reads and writes are expensive. This patch adds checks to avoid
> > > its usage where possible.
> > 
> > save_disable_all()
> > enable(1)
> > restore_all()
> > 
> > would not correctly enable 1 with the below modification as we do 
> > not write the configuration into the msr, on which restore relies, 
> > as it only toggles the _ENABLE bit.
> > 
> > That said, I'm not sure if that's really an issue, but its why the 
> > does does as it does.
> > 
> > A better abstraction could perhaps avoid this issue all-together.
> 
> Could we remove the disable-all facility altogether and make the 
> core code NMI-safe? The current approach wont scale on CPUs that 
> dont have global-disable features.
> 
> disable-all was arguably a hack i introduced and which spread too 
> far. Can you see a conceptual need for it?

power suffers the same issue and simply iterates the things like amd
does now.

The thing is, with a global disable you get slightly better coupling, so
in that respect it might be nice to have.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/