Re: Bisect results for 4.4.1-rt[4,5]

From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Date: Thu Feb 25 2016 - 09:06:37 EST

On 02/17/2016 09:14 AM, Tim Sander wrote:
> Hi Sebastian

Hi Tim,

> I have done a bisect run, its a rather innocent looking on liner which seems
> to cause the problems. The numbers where reasonably stable so i am pretty
> confident that this is the patch giving ~26µs additional latency on the Altera
> SOC plattform:
> eec2bf477ac674583a7d73b9d00f47c528b7266d is the first bad commit
> commit eec2bf477ac674583a7d73b9d00f47c528b7266d
> Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu Feb 4 16:38:10 2016 +0100
> kernel/perf: mark perf_cpu_context's timer as irqsafe
> Otherwise we get a WARN_ON() backtrace and some events are reported as
> "not counted".
> Cc: stable-rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Seriously? That patch? I played a little and I doubt seriously that
this patch has something to do with it.
So before that patch you would have a warn_on spotted and complained if
that timer would fire. So that is one reason why I doubt that this
patch is in charge of the 25us.

If I add a printk() to that timer I don't see it under "normal"
circumstances. However I do
perf_4.3 stat -e
apt-get update

then I see them fire.

> Best Regards
> Tim