Re: [PATCH] x86,perf: Unmask LVTPC only if we have APIC supported

[Ingo Molnar]

* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  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?

Well it's not just one line of code as (like you mentioned) perf_event.c is 
affected as well.

Introducing a dummy (NOP) placeholder method is what we are doing in all the 
other cases (such as spin_lock()), we dont pollute the kernel with #ifdefs.

	Ingo
--
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/