Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: catch spurious interrupts after disablingcounters

[Robert Richter]

On 15.09.10 13:40:12, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Yeah, already noted from your previous email. Perhaps we might
> do a bit simplier approach then -- in nmi handler were we mark
> "next nmi" we could take into account not "one next" nmi but
> sum of handled counters minus one being just handled (of course
> cleaning this counter if new "non spurious" nmi came in), can't
> say I like this approach but just a thought.

If we disable a counter, it might still trigger an interrupt which we
cannot detect. Thus, if a running counter is deactivated, we must
count it as handled in the nmi handler.

Working with a sum is not possible, because a disabled counter may or
*may not* trigger an interrupt. We cannot predict the number of
counters that will be handled.

Dealing with the "next nmi" is also not handy here. Spurious nmis are
caused then stopping a counter. Since this is done outside the nmi
handler, we would then start touching the "next nmi" also outside the
handler. This might be more complex because we then have to deal with
locking or atomic access. We shouldn't do that.

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center

--
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/