[Linux-Xtensa] [PATCH 7/8] xtensa: implement counting and sampling perf events

Chris Zankel chris at zankel.net
Tue Jul 7 03:56:48 UTC 2015


Hi Max,

We could probably still use NMI with a separate stack. However, for
exception handling while in NMI, we might have to implement something
similar to x86_64 (https://lwn.net/Articles/484932/).

Cheers!
-Chris

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 04:56:09PM +0300, Max Filippov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 04:32:48PM +0300, Max Filippov wrote:
>>> >> +static int __init xtensa_pmu_init(void)
>>> >> +{
>>> >> +     int ret;
>>> >> +     int irq = irq_create_mapping(NULL, XCHAL_PROFILING_INTERRUPT);
>>> >
>>> > Does this platform have interrupt priorities which you can partially
>>> > mask in order to create NMI like behaviour?
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean by "NMI like".
>>
>> There's a number of archs where we implement NMIs by having
>> local_irq_disable() only disable part of the interrupt priority range
>> and making sure all 'normal' IRQs are mapped in that priority range.
>>
>> We then map our NMI handlers to a priority above the 'normal' range,
>> such that these interrupts can indeed happen when interrupts are
>> 'disabled.
>>
>> See for example:
>>
>> b4f4372f96e0 ("sparc64: Make %pil level 15 a pseudo-NMI.")
>> 0c25e9e6cbe7 ("sparc64: Adjust __raw_local_irq_save() to cooperate in NMIs.")
>> c011f80ba091 ("sparc64: Add some more commentary to __raw_local_irq_save()")
>
> Ok, I see. I guess I can change IRQ disabling logic to not mask perf IRQ
> in case it's configured as the only interrupt on its level and it's the highest
> medium-level IRQ.
>
>>> Interrupt priorities are fixed in the current xtensa architecture, and
>>> we can in theory mask certain level and below, but practically we
>>> always mask all low- and medium- level interrupts.
>>>
>>> Also we currently can't have handlers for high priority interrupts written in C.
>>
>> Why not? Surely this can be cured with an assembly stub?
>
> IIUC that was a deliberate architecture design choice and working around
> it penalizes all interrupt handlers. But let me take another close look.
>
>> The advantage of having NMIs is that profiling information for the
>> kernel becomes much more useful. Without this local_irq_enable() will be
>> a very 'hot' function.
>
> I haven't noticed that in my testing.
>
> --
> Thanks.
> -- Max


More information about the linux-xtensa mailing list