Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ThunderX2: Add Cavium ThunderX2 SoC UNCORE PMU driver

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:37:12AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Ganapat,
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay in replying; I was away most of last week.
> 
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:03:19PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gklkml16@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:30:47PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> 
> > >>> +static int alloc_counter(struct thunderx2_pmu_uncore_channel *pmu_uncore)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> +     int counter;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +     raw_spin_lock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> > >>> +     counter = find_first_zero_bit(pmu_uncore->counter_mask,
> > >>> +                             pmu_uncore->uncore_dev->max_counters);
> > >>> +     if (counter == pmu_uncore->uncore_dev->max_counters) {
> > >>> +             raw_spin_unlock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> > >>> +             return -ENOSPC;
> > >>> +     }
> > >>> +     set_bit(counter, pmu_uncore->counter_mask);
> > >>> +     raw_spin_unlock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> > >>> +     return counter;
> > >>> +}
> > >>> +
> > >>> +static void free_counter(struct thunderx2_pmu_uncore_channel *pmu_uncore,
> > >>> +                                     int counter)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> +     raw_spin_lock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> > >>> +     clear_bit(counter, pmu_uncore->counter_mask);
> > >>> +     raw_spin_unlock(&pmu_uncore->lock);
> > >>> +}
> > >>
> > >> I don't believe that locking is required in either of these, as the perf
> > >> core serializes pmu::add() and pmu::del(), where these get called.
> > 
> > without this locking, i am seeing "BUG: scheduling while atomic" when
> > i run perf with more events together than the maximum counters
> > supported
> 
> Did you manage to get to the bottom of this?
> 
> Do you have a backtrace?
> 
> It looks like in your latest posting you reserve counters through the
> userspace ABI, which doesn't seem right to me, and I'd like to
> understand the problem.

Looks like I misunderstood -- those are still allocated kernel-side.

I'll follow that up in the v5 posting.

Thanks,
Mark.