Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Fix call-chainsupport to use NMI-safe methods

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Ingo Molnar (mingo@xxxxxxx) wrote:
> 
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The GUP based method is pretty generic though - and can be used on 
> > other architectures as well. It's not as fast as direct access 
> > though.
> 
> Another question is: your patch switches over all normal exceptions 
> from IRET to hand-unroll+RET.
> 

Nope, it actually only switches the exceptions returning from an
exception handler nested in NMI context to the hand-unroll+RET version.
Given such exception nesting is expected to be very rare, it should not
show any performance difference.

I also organised the code to make sure I did not add any test to the
fast paths in my original patch.

> It would be really nice to benchmark it (via 'perf stat' for example 
> ;-) whether that's a slowdown or a speedup.
> 
> If it's a slowdown then the decision is easy: we dont want this, we 
> want to push the overhead into the sampling code, away from common 
> codepaths.
> 

I did not try to make the "hand unroll + ret" the default. I therefore
don't know if it is faster or slower than iret. But I prefered to stay
on the safe side and only modify the exceptions nested within NMI
handlers.

Mathieu

> [ If on the other hand it's a speedup of a few cycles then we have 
>   the problem of me suddenly liking this patch a whole lot more ;-) ]
> 
> 	Ingo

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/