Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] arm: perf: Use FIQ to handle PMU events.

[Joshua Clayton]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:18:10 AM Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 19/01/15 16:35, Joshua Clayton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 04:35:31 PM Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >> Using FIQ (if it is available) gives perf a better insight into the
> >> system by allowing code run with interrupts disabled to be profiled.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> 
> >>  arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h       |  4 ++++
> >>  arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c     |  2 +-
> >>  arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c | 35
> >>  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>  arch/arm/kernel/traps.c          |  3 ++-
> >>  4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h
> >> index b1596bd59129..2a7ea97a4a14 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pmu.h
> >> @@ -123,6 +123,8 @@ struct arm_pmu {
> >> 
> >>  extern const struct dev_pm_ops armpmu_dev_pm_ops;
> >> 
> >> +irqreturn_t armpmu_dispatch_irq(int irq, void *dev);
> >> +
> >> 
> >>  int armpmu_register(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int type);
> >>  
> >>  u64 armpmu_event_update(struct perf_event *event);
> >> 
> >> @@ -136,6 +138,8 @@ int armpmu_map_event(struct perf_event *event,
> >> 
> >>  						[PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_RESULT_MAX],
> >>  						
> >>  		     u32 raw_event_mask);
> >> 
> >> +void cpu_pmu_handle_fiq(int irq);
> >> +
> >> 
> >>  struct pmu_probe_info {
> >>  
> >>  	unsigned int cpuid;
> >>  	unsigned int mask;
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> index f7c65adaa428..5ae9adf7f18e 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
> >> 
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  
> >>  }
> >> 
> >> -static irqreturn_t armpmu_dispatch_irq(int irq, void *dev)
> >> +irqreturn_t armpmu_dispatch_irq(int irq, void *dev)
> >> 
> >>  {
> >>  
> >>  	struct arm_pmu *armpmu;
> >>  	struct platform_device *plat_device;
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> >> b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c index a80309087a7b..5c4e9ce23389
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> >> @@ -36,6 +36,9 @@
> >> 
> >>  /* Set at runtime when we know what CPU type we are. */
> >>  static struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu;
> >> 
> >> +/* Allows us to find out if an IRQ is for us (mostly used from NMI
> >> context) */ +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_pmu_irqs);
> >> +
> >> 
> >>  /*
> >>  
> >>   * Despite the names, these two functions are CPU-specific and are used
> >>   * by the OProfile/perf code.
> >> 
> >> @@ -127,6 +130,24 @@ static void cpu_pmu_free_irq(struct arm_pmu
> >> *cpu_pmu)
> >> 
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>  }
> >> 
> >> +/*
> >> + * This handler is called *unconditionally* from the default NMI/FIQ
> >> + * handler. The irq may not be anything to do with us so the main
> >> + * job of this function is to figure out if the irq passed in is ours
> >> + * or not.
> >> + */
> > 
> > This comment is an indicator that all the code in cpu_pmu_handle_fiq is
> > in the wrong place.
> > It (or something like it) belongs at the level of the default
> > FIQ handler, and not in perf_event_cpu.c
> 
> I'm not sure about that.
> 
> If we moved this code into the default FIQ handler that means the PMU
> driver would have to explicitly share its irq value with the default FIQ
> handler (which doesn't really care about that).
> 
> I'm inclined to view this code as the effect of avoiding indirection in
> the default FIQ handler.
> 
> Regular irq code has nothing like this because &armpmu_dispatch_irq, irq
> and get_cpu_ptr(&cpu_pmu->hw_events->percpu_pmu) would all be looked up
> from the irqaction and any unwanted events are naturally filtered by the
> irq dispatch.
> 
> After your review I'm very tempted to put together a patch that
> dispatches NMIs indirectly from the default FIQ handler. However I still
> don't have much of an answer to Russell's concerns about code review.
> 
Ironically I'm exactly the person RMK wants to protect against.

Perhaps request_nmi_irq (or code called from there) might be the best place to 
put a "bad code filter", rather than in the handler/dispatcher as the FIQ is 
running.
 
> >> +void cpu_pmu_handle_fiq(int irq)
> >> +{
> >> +	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >> +
> >> +	if (irq != get_cpu_var(cpu_pmu_irqs))
> >> +		return;
> >> +
> >> +	(void)armpmu_dispatch_irq(irq,
> >> +				  get_cpu_ptr(&cpu_pmu->hw_events->percpu_pmu));
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +
> >> 
> >>  static int cpu_pmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu, irq_handler_t
> >> 
> >> handler) {
> >> 
> >>  	int i, err, irq, irqs;
> >> 
> >> @@ -170,9 +191,16 @@ static int cpu_pmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu
> >> *cpu_pmu, irq_handler_t handler) continue;
> >> 
> >>  			}
> >> 
> >> -			err = request_irq(irq, handler,
> >> -					  IRQF_NOBALANCING | IRQF_NO_THREAD, "arm-pmu",
> >> -					  per_cpu_ptr(&hw_events->percpu_pmu, i));
> >> +			err = request_nmi_irq(
> >> +			    irq, IRQF_NOBALANCING, "arm-pmu",
> >> +			    per_cpu_ptr(&hw_events->percpu_pmu, i));
> >> +			if (err) {
> >> +				err = request_irq(
> >> +				    irq, handler,
> >> +				    IRQF_NOBALANCING | IRQF_NO_THREAD,
> >> +				    "arm-pmu",
> >> +				    per_cpu_ptr(&hw_events->percpu_pmu, i));
> >> +			}
> >> 
> >>  			if (err) {
> >>  			
> >>  				pr_err("unable to request IRQ%d for ARM PMU counters\n",
> >>  				
> >>  					irq);
> >> 
> >> @@ -180,6 +208,7 @@ static int cpu_pmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu
> >> *cpu_pmu,
> >> irq_handler_t handler) }
> >> 
> >>  			cpumask_set_cpu(i, &cpu_pmu->active_irqs);
> >> 
> >> +			per_cpu(cpu_pmu_irqs, i) = irq;
> >> 
> >>  		}
> >>  	
> >>  	}
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
> >> index 74c752b9db68..c581e07517ff 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
> >> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
> >> 
> >>  #include <asm/tls.h>
> >>  #include <asm/system_misc.h>
> >>  #include <asm/opcodes.h>
> >> 
> >> +#include <asm/pmu.h>
> >> 
> >>  static const char *handler[]= {
> >> 
> >> @@ -485,7 +486,7 @@ asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry
> >> handle_fiq_as_nmi(struct pt_regs *regs) irq = gic_ack_fiq();
> >> 
> >>  	if (irq) {
> >> 
> >> -		/* empty - no SPI handlers (yet) */
> >> +		cpu_pmu_handle_fiq(irq);
> >> 
> >>  	} else {
> >>  
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >>  
> >>  		ipi_cpu_backtrace(regs);
> >> 
> >> --
> >> 1.9.3
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

-- 
Joshua Clayton
Software Engineer
UniWest
122 S. 4th Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Ph: (509) 544-0720
Fx: (509) 544-0868 
--
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/