Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
Hi, On 5/21/20 4:00 AM, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-boun...@lists.infradead.org] >> On Behalf Of Alexandru Elisei >> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:31 PM> >> Hi, >> >> On 5/18/20 12:17 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 5/18/20 11:45 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: Hi all, On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > HI Sumit, > > Thanks for your information. > > I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference > in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for > debuggability. > And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. > I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) > > Hi Julien, > > Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches, which is my preferred approach. I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's investigating some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion with the NMI), but maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches somewhere in the mean time. Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when you expect you could post that? >>> I'm currently working on rebasing the patches on top of 5.7-rc5, when >>> I have something usable I'll post a link (should be a couple of days). >>> After that I will address the review comments, and I plan to do a >>> thorough testing because I'm not 100% confident that some of the >>> assumptions around the locks that were removed are correct. My guess is >> this will take a few weeks. >> >> Pushed a WIP branch on linux-arm.org [1]: >> >> git clone -b WIP-pmu-nmi git://linux-arm.org/linux-ae >> >> Practically untested, I only did perf record on a defconfig kernel running >> on the >> model. >> >> [1] >> http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-ae.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/WIP-pm >> u-nmi > Fortunately, it does work. I used this tree to perf annotate > arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist() which > is completely disabling IRQ. Luckily, it reports correct data. Before that, > it reported all time was spent by > the code which enabled IRQ . That's good news that it works for you, thanks for letting me know. Alex
RE: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
> -Original Message- > From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-boun...@lists.infradead.org] > On Behalf Of Alexandru Elisei > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:31 PM> > Hi, > > On 5/18/20 12:17 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 5/18/20 11:45 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > >>> HI Sumit, > >>> > >>> Thanks for your information. > >>> > >>> I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference > >>> in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for > >>> debuggability. > >>> And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. > >>> I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) > >>> > >>> Hi Julien, > >>> > >>> Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? > >> Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches, > >> which is my preferred approach. > >> > >> I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's > >> investigating some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion > >> with the NMI), but maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches > >> somewhere in the mean time. > >> > >> Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when > >> you expect you could post that? > > I'm currently working on rebasing the patches on top of 5.7-rc5, when > > I have something usable I'll post a link (should be a couple of days). > > After that I will address the review comments, and I plan to do a > > thorough testing because I'm not 100% confident that some of the > > assumptions around the locks that were removed are correct. My guess is > this will take a few weeks. > > Pushed a WIP branch on linux-arm.org [1]: > > git clone -b WIP-pmu-nmi git://linux-arm.org/linux-ae > > Practically untested, I only did perf record on a defconfig kernel running on > the > model. > > [1] > http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-ae.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/WIP-pm > u-nmi Fortunately, it does work. I used this tree to perf annotate arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist() which is completely disabling IRQ. Luckily, it reports correct data. Before that, it reported all time was spent by the code which enabled IRQ . Barry > > Thanks, > Alex > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > >> Thanks, > >> Mark. > >> > >>> This is really useful in debugging. > >>> Thank you!! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/328 > >>> > >>> > >>> Lecopzer > >>> > >>> Sumit Garg 於 2020年5月18日 週一 下午 > 1:46寫道： > + Julien > > Hi Lecopzer, > > On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:20, Lecopzer Chen > wrote: > > These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on > > Pseudo NMI [1] which has been upstreamed. > > > > In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like > interruts. > > That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for > > hard-lockup detector which had already a standard interface inside > Linux. > > > > Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and > > make sure it works fine. > > > This is something that is already implemented via Julien's > patch-set [1]. Its v4 has been floating since July, 2019 and I > couldn't find any major blocking comments but not sure why things > haven't progressed further. > > Maybe Julien or Arm maintainers can provide updates on existing > patch-set [1] and how we should proceed further with this > interesting feature. > > And regarding hard-lockup detection, I have been able to enable it > based on perf NMI events using Julien's perf patch-set [1]. Have a > look at the patch here [2]. > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11047407/ > [2] > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/7322 > 27.html > > -Sumit > > > Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the > > link [2] did. > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535 > > [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq > > > > > > Lecopzer Chen (3): > > arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration > > arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR > > arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI > > > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++ > > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++-- > > drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51 > ++ > > include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6 > > 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.25.1
Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
Hi, On 5/18/20 12:17 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/18/20 11:45 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: >>> HI Sumit, >>> >>> Thanks for your information. >>> >>> I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference >>> in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for >>> debuggability. >>> And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. >>> I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) >>> >>> Hi Julien, >>> >>> Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? >> Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches, which >> is my preferred approach. >> >> I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's investigating >> some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion with the NMI), but >> maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches somewhere in the mean >> time. >> >> Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when you >> expect you could post that? > I'm currently working on rebasing the patches on top of 5.7-rc5, when I have > something usable I'll post a link (should be a couple of days). After that I > will > address the review comments, and I plan to do a thorough testing because I'm > not > 100% confident that some of the assumptions around the locks that were > removed are > correct. My guess is this will take a few weeks. Pushed a WIP branch on linux-arm.org [1]: git clone -b WIP-pmu-nmi git://linux-arm.org/linux-ae Practically untested, I only did perf record on a defconfig kernel running on the model. [1] http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-ae.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/WIP-pmu-nmi Thanks, Alex > > Thanks, > Alex >> Thanks, >> Mark. >> >>> This is really useful in debugging. >>> Thank you!! >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/328 >>> >>> >>> Lecopzer >>> >>> Sumit Garg 於 2020年5月18日 週一 下午1:46寫道： + Julien Hi Lecopzer, On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:20, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on > Pseudo NMI [1] which has been upstreamed. > > In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like interruts. > That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for hard-lockup > detector which had already a standard interface inside Linux. > > Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and make sure > it works fine. > This is something that is already implemented via Julien's patch-set [1]. Its v4 has been floating since July, 2019 and I couldn't find any major blocking comments but not sure why things haven't progressed further. Maybe Julien or Arm maintainers can provide updates on existing patch-set [1] and how we should proceed further with this interesting feature. And regarding hard-lockup detection, I have been able to enable it based on perf NMI events using Julien's perf patch-set [1]. Have a look at the patch here [2]. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11047407/ [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html -Sumit > Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the link > [2] > did. > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535 > [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq > > > Lecopzer Chen (3): > arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration > arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR > arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++ > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++-- > drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51 ++ > include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6 > 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.25.1 > > > ___ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > ___ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
RE: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
>
> On 5/18/20 11:45 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote:
> >> HI Sumit,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your information.
> >>
> >> I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference
> >> in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for
> >> debuggability.
> >> And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort.
> >> I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :)
> >>
> >> Hi Julien,
> >>
> >> Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action?
> > Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches,
> > which is my preferred approach.
> >
> > I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's
> > investigating some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion
> > with the NMI), but maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches
> > somewhere in the mean time.
> >
> > Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when
> > you expect you could post that?
>
> I'm currently working on rebasing the patches on top of 5.7-rc5, when I have
> something usable I'll post a link (should be a couple of days). After that I
> will
> address the review comments, and I plan to do a thorough testing because I'm
> not 100% confident that some of the assumptions around the locks that were
> removed are correct. My guess is this will take a few weeks.
+1
I would be awesome if perf NMI patches could be re-activated. Right now, it
seems it is hard to
do "perf annotate" on a kernel function with local_irq disabled.
func()
{
local_irq_save();
.
local_irq_restore();
return;
}
Perf will report all cycles are used by the last moment of the func().
Thanks,
Barry
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> >
> >> This is really useful in debugging.
> >> Thank you!!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/328
> >>
> >>
> >> Lecopzer
> >>
> >> Sumit Garg 於 2020年5月18日 週一 下午
> 1:46寫道：
> >>> + Julien
> >>>
> >>> Hi Lecopzer,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:20, Lecopzer Chen
> wrote:
> These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on Pseudo
> NMI [1] which has been upstreamed.
>
> In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like
> interruts.
> That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for
> hard-lockup detector which had already a standard interface inside Linux.
>
> Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and
> make sure it works fine.
>
> >>> This is something that is already implemented via Julien's patch-set
> >>> [1]. Its v4 has been floating since July, 2019 and I couldn't find
> >>> any major blocking comments but not sure why things haven't
> >>> progressed further.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe Julien or Arm maintainers can provide updates on existing
> >>> patch-set [1] and how we should proceed further with this
> >>> interesting feature.
> >>>
> >>> And regarding hard-lockup detection, I have been able to enable it
> >>> based on perf NMI events using Julien's perf patch-set [1]. Have a
> >>> look at the patch here [2].
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11047407/
> >>> [2]
> >>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/73222
> >>> 7.html
> >>>
> >>> -Sumit
> >>>
> Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the
> link [2] did.
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535
> [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq
>
>
> Lecopzer Chen (3):
> arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration
> arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR
> arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI
>
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++
> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++--
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51
> ++
> include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6
> 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.25.1
Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 19:49, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:39:23PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:47, Alexandru Elisei > > wrote: > > > On 5/18/20 11:45 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > > > >> HI Sumit, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for your information. > > > >> > > > >> I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference > > > >> in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for > > > >> debuggability. > > > >> And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. > > > >> I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) > > > >> > > > >> Hi Julien, > > > >> > > > >> Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? > > > > Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches, which > > > > is my preferred approach. > > > > > > > > I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's investigating > > > > some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion with the NMI), but > > > > maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches somewhere in the mean > > > > time. > > > > > > > > Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when you > > > > expect you could post that? > > > > > > I'm currently working on rebasing the patches on top of 5.7-rc5, when I > > > have > > > something usable I'll post a link (should be a couple of days). After > > > that I will > > > address the review comments, and I plan to do a thorough testing because > > > I'm not > > > 100% confident that some of the assumptions around the locks that were > > > removed are > > > correct. My guess is this will take a few weeks. > > > > > > > Thanks Mark, Alex for the status updates on perf NMI feature. > > > > Alex, > > > > As the hard-lockup detection patch [1] has a dependency on perf NMI > > patch-set, I will rebase and test hard-lockup detector when you have > > got a working tree. But due to the dependency, I think patch [1] > > should be accepted along with perf NMI patch-set. So would you be open > > to include this patch as part of your series? > > > > [1] > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html > > While it depends on the perf NMI bits, I don't think it makes sense to > tie that into the series given it's trying to achieve something very > different. > > I think that should be reposted separately once the perf NMI bits are in > shape. Okay, fair enough. Will keep it as a separate patch then. -Sumit > > Thanks, > Mark.
Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:39:23PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:47, Alexandru Elisei > wrote: > > On 5/18/20 11:45 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > > >> HI Sumit, > > >> > > >> Thanks for your information. > > >> > > >> I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference > > >> in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for > > >> debuggability. > > >> And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. > > >> I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) > > >> > > >> Hi Julien, > > >> > > >> Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? > > > Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches, which > > > is my preferred approach. > > > > > > I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's investigating > > > some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion with the NMI), but > > > maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches somewhere in the mean > > > time. > > > > > > Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when you > > > expect you could post that? > > > > I'm currently working on rebasing the patches on top of 5.7-rc5, when I have > > something usable I'll post a link (should be a couple of days). After that > > I will > > address the review comments, and I plan to do a thorough testing because > > I'm not > > 100% confident that some of the assumptions around the locks that were > > removed are > > correct. My guess is this will take a few weeks. > > > > Thanks Mark, Alex for the status updates on perf NMI feature. > > Alex, > > As the hard-lockup detection patch [1] has a dependency on perf NMI > patch-set, I will rebase and test hard-lockup detector when you have > got a working tree. But due to the dependency, I think patch [1] > should be accepted along with perf NMI patch-set. So would you be open > to include this patch as part of your series? > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html While it depends on the perf NMI bits, I don't think it makes sense to tie that into the series given it's trying to achieve something very different. I think that should be reposted separately once the perf NMI bits are in shape. Thanks, Mark.
Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:47, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > Hi, > > On 5/18/20 11:45 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > >> HI Sumit, > >> > >> Thanks for your information. > >> > >> I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference > >> in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for > >> debuggability. > >> And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. > >> I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) > >> > >> Hi Julien, > >> > >> Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? > > Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches, which > > is my preferred approach. > > > > I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's investigating > > some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion with the NMI), but > > maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches somewhere in the mean > > time. > > > > Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when you > > expect you could post that? > > I'm currently working on rebasing the patches on top of 5.7-rc5, when I have > something usable I'll post a link (should be a couple of days). After that I > will > address the review comments, and I plan to do a thorough testing because I'm > not > 100% confident that some of the assumptions around the locks that were > removed are > correct. My guess is this will take a few weeks. > Thanks Mark, Alex for the status updates on perf NMI feature. Alex, As the hard-lockup detection patch [1] has a dependency on perf NMI patch-set, I will rebase and test hard-lockup detector when you have got a working tree. But due to the dependency, I think patch [1] should be accepted along with perf NMI patch-set. So would you be open to include this patch as part of your series? [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html -Sumit > Thanks, > Alex > > > > Thanks, > > Mark. > > > >> This is really useful in debugging. > >> Thank you!! > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/328 > >> > >> > >> Lecopzer > >> > >> Sumit Garg 於 2020年5月18日 週一 下午1:46寫道： > >>> + Julien > >>> > >>> Hi Lecopzer, > >>> > >>> On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:20, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on > Pseudo NMI [1] which has been upstreamed. > > In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like interruts. > That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for > hard-lockup > detector which had already a standard interface inside Linux. > > Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and make sure > it works fine. > > >>> This is something that is already implemented via Julien's patch-set > >>> [1]. Its v4 has been floating since July, 2019 and I couldn't find any > >>> major blocking comments but not sure why things haven't progressed > >>> further. > >>> > >>> Maybe Julien or Arm maintainers can provide updates on existing > >>> patch-set [1] and how we should proceed further with this interesting > >>> feature. > >>> > >>> And regarding hard-lockup detection, I have been able to enable it > >>> based on perf NMI events using Julien's perf patch-set [1]. Have a > >>> look at the patch here [2]. > >>> > >>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11047407/ > >>> [2] > >>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html > >>> > >>> -Sumit > >>> > Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the link > [2] > did. > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535 > [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq > > > Lecopzer Chen (3): > arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration > arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR > arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++ > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++-- > drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51 ++ > include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6 > 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.25.1 > > > ___ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
Hi, On 5/18/20 11:45 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: >> HI Sumit, >> >> Thanks for your information. >> >> I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference >> in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for >> debuggability. >> And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. >> I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) >> >> Hi Julien, >> >> Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? > Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches, which > is my preferred approach. > > I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's investigating > some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion with the NMI), but > maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches somewhere in the mean > time. > > Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when you > expect you could post that? I'm currently working on rebasing the patches on top of 5.7-rc5, when I have something usable I'll post a link (should be a couple of days). After that I will address the review comments, and I plan to do a thorough testing because I'm not 100% confident that some of the assumptions around the locks that were removed are correct. My guess is this will take a few weeks. Thanks, Alex > > Thanks, > Mark. > >> This is really useful in debugging. >> Thank you!! >> >> >> >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/328 >> >> >> Lecopzer >> >> Sumit Garg 於 2020年5月18日 週一 下午1:46寫道： >>> + Julien >>> >>> Hi Lecopzer, >>> >>> On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:20, Lecopzer Chen wrote: These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on Pseudo NMI [1] which has been upstreamed. In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like interruts. That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for hard-lockup detector which had already a standard interface inside Linux. Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and make sure it works fine. >>> This is something that is already implemented via Julien's patch-set >>> [1]. Its v4 has been floating since July, 2019 and I couldn't find any >>> major blocking comments but not sure why things haven't progressed >>> further. >>> >>> Maybe Julien or Arm maintainers can provide updates on existing >>> patch-set [1] and how we should proceed further with this interesting >>> feature. >>> >>> And regarding hard-lockup detection, I have been able to enable it >>> based on perf NMI events using Julien's perf patch-set [1]. Have a >>> look at the patch here [2]. >>> >>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11047407/ >>> [2] >>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html >>> >>> -Sumit >>> Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the link [2] did. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535 [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq Lecopzer Chen (3): arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++ arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++-- drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51 ++ include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) -- 2.25.1 ___ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
Hi all, On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:26:00PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > HI Sumit, > > Thanks for your information. > > I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference > in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for > debuggability. > And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. > I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) > > Hi Julien, > > Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? Alexandru (Cc'd) has been rebasing and reworking Julien's patches, which is my preferred approach. I understand that's not quite ready for posting since he's investigating some of the nastier subtleties (e.g. mutual exclusion with the NMI), but maybe we can put the work-in-progress patches somewhere in the mean time. Alexandru, do you have an idea of what needs to be done, and/or when you expect you could post that? Thanks, Mark. > This is really useful in debugging. > Thank you!! > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/328 > > > Lecopzer > > Sumit Garg 於 2020年5月18日 週一 下午1:46寫道： > > > > + Julien > > > > Hi Lecopzer, > > > > On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:20, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > > > > > > These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on > > > Pseudo NMI [1] which has been upstreamed. > > > > > > In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like interruts. > > > That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for hard-lockup > > > detector which had already a standard interface inside Linux. > > > > > > Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and make sure > > > it works fine. > > > > > > > This is something that is already implemented via Julien's patch-set > > [1]. Its v4 has been floating since July, 2019 and I couldn't find any > > major blocking comments but not sure why things haven't progressed > > further. > > > > Maybe Julien or Arm maintainers can provide updates on existing > > patch-set [1] and how we should proceed further with this interesting > > feature. > > > > And regarding hard-lockup detection, I have been able to enable it > > based on perf NMI events using Julien's perf patch-set [1]. Have a > > look at the patch here [2]. > > > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11047407/ > > [2] > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html > > > > -Sumit > > > > > Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the link > > > [2] > > > did. > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535 > > > [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq > > > > > > > > > Lecopzer Chen (3): > > > arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration > > > arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR > > > arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI > > > > > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++ > > > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++-- > > > drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51 ++ > > > include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6 > > > 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.25.1 > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > > > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
HI Sumit, Thanks for your information. I've already implemented IPI (same as you did [1], little difference in detail), hardlockup detector and perf in last year(2019) for debuggability. And now we tend to upstream to reduce kernel maintaining effort. I'm glad if someone in ARM can do this work :) Hi Julien, Does any Arm maintainers can proceed this action? This is really useful in debugging. Thank you!! [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/328 Lecopzer Sumit Garg 於 2020年5月18日 週一 下午1:46寫道： > > + Julien > > Hi Lecopzer, > > On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:20, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > > > > These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on > > Pseudo NMI [1] which has been upstreamed. > > > > In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like interruts. > > That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for hard-lockup > > detector which had already a standard interface inside Linux. > > > > Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and make sure > > it works fine. > > > > This is something that is already implemented via Julien's patch-set > [1]. Its v4 has been floating since July, 2019 and I couldn't find any > major blocking comments but not sure why things haven't progressed > further. > > Maybe Julien or Arm maintainers can provide updates on existing > patch-set [1] and how we should proceed further with this interesting > feature. > > And regarding hard-lockup detection, I have been able to enable it > based on perf NMI events using Julien's perf patch-set [1]. Have a > look at the patch here [2]. > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11047407/ > [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html > > -Sumit > > > Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the link [2] > > did. > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535 > > [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq > > > > > > Lecopzer Chen (3): > > arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration > > arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR > > arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI > > > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++ > > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++-- > > drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51 ++ > > include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6 > > 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.25.1 > > > > > > ___ > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
+ Julien Hi Lecopzer, On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:20, Lecopzer Chen wrote: > > These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on > Pseudo NMI [1] which has been upstreamed. > > In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like interruts. > That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for hard-lockup > detector which had already a standard interface inside Linux. > > Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and make sure > it works fine. > This is something that is already implemented via Julien's patch-set [1]. Its v4 has been floating since July, 2019 and I couldn't find any major blocking comments but not sure why things haven't progressed further. Maybe Julien or Arm maintainers can provide updates on existing patch-set [1] and how we should proceed further with this interesting feature. And regarding hard-lockup detection, I have been able to enable it based on perf NMI events using Julien's perf patch-set [1]. Have a look at the patch here [2]. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11047407/ [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-May/732227.html -Sumit > Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the link [2] > did. > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535 > [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq > > > Lecopzer Chen (3): > arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration > arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR > arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++ > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++-- > drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51 ++ > include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6 > 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.25.1 > > > ___ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
[PATCH 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for Perf NMI interrupts
These series implement Perf NMI funxtionality and depends on Pseudo NMI [1] which has been upstreamed. In arm64 with GICv3, Pseudo NMI was implemented for NMI-like interruts. That can be extended to Perf NMI which is the prerequisite for hard-lockup detector which had already a standard interface inside Linux. Thus the first step we need to implement perf NMI interface and make sure it works fine. Perf NMI has been test by dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null like the link [2] did. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/535 [2] https://www.linaro.org/blog/debugging-arm-kernels-using-nmifiq Lecopzer Chen (3): arm_pmu: Add support for perf NMI interrupts registration arm64: perf: Support NMI context for perf event ISR arm64: Kconfig: Add support for the Perf NMI arch/arm64/Kconfig | 10 +++ arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++-- drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 51 ++ include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 6 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) -- 2.25.1
