Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/amd: Change NMI latency mitigation to use a timestamp

[Lendacky, Thomas]

On 8/1/19 4:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:57:41PM +0000, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> It turns out that the NMI latency workaround from commit 6d3edaae16c6
>> ("x86/perf/amd: Resolve NMI latency issues for active PMCs") ends up
>> being too conservative and results in the perf NMI handler claiming NMIs
>> to easily on AMD hardware when the NMI watchdog is active.
>>
>> This has an impact, for example, on the hpwdt (HPE watchdog timer) module.
>> This module can produce an NMI that is used to reset the system. It
>> registers an NMI handler for the NMI_UNKNOWN type and relies on the fact
>> that nothing has claimed an NMI so that its handler will be invoked when
>> the watchdog device produces an NMI. After the referenced commit, the
>> hpwdt module is unable to process its generated NMI if the NMI watchdog is
>> active, because the current NMI latency mitigation results in the NMI
>> being claimed by the perf NMI handler.
>>
>> Update the AMD perf NMI latency mitigation workaround to, instead, use a
>> window of time. Whenever a PMC is handled in the perf NMI handler, set a
>> timestamp which will act as a perf NMI window. Any NMIs arriving within
>> that window will be claimed by perf. Anything outside that window will
>> not be claimed by perf. The value for the NMI window is set to 100 msecs.
>> This is a conservative value that easily covers any NMI latency in the
>> hardware. While this still results in a window in which the hpwdt module
>> will not receive its NMI, the window is now much, much smaller.
> 
> Blergh, I so hate all this. The proposed patch is basically duct tape.

Yeah, I'm not a fan either.

> 
> The horribly retarded x86 NMI infrastructure strikes again :/
> 
> Tom; do you have any idea how expensive it is to twiddle CR8 and play
> games with interrupt priorities instead of piling world + dog on this
> one NMI line? (as compared to CLI/STI)

I can check on that.  What are you thinking?

Thanks,
Tom

>