Feedback requested on switching the exception wrapper used for the PMU interrupt on ppc64

[Corey Ashford]

Corey J Ashford wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Corey Ashford wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> One of the things I've been working on is porting perfmon2 to ppc64.
>> We've made a fair amount of progress on it, and support is available
>> in libpfm and the perfmon2 kernel patch.
>>
>> One of the things we had to work around was the "lazy interrupt
>> disabling" mechanism in ppc64 Linux.  The problem was that the PMU
>> exception handler (0xf00) uses the STD_EXCEPTION_PSERIES wrapper,
>> which does not support lazy interrupt disabling.
>>
>> This is desirable for Oprofile's use of the PMU since its handler is
>> fairly simple and being able to profile interrupt protected code is
>> desirable.  However, it causes problems for perfmon2, since the
>> operations it performs on the thread of its PMU interrupt handler
>> can cause a deadlock condition (it can end up calling spin_lock, for
>> example).
>>
>> Initially, to work around this, we created special spin_lock_irqsave
>> and spin_unlock_irqrestore macros for perfmon2 which we could
>> override for POWER to define them as functions which do hard
>> disables and restores.
>>
>> However, not all of the places that we need to disable interrupts
>> were occurring from within the perfmon2 code.  Specifically, getting
>> PMU interrupts in the middle of a schedule() call (where interrupts
>> were expected to be disabled) was causing kernel hangs.
>>
>> To fix this, I've gone back and removed the special spin_lock macros
>> we defined in perfmon2 and have ifdef'd arch/powerpc/kernel/
>> head_64.S file as follows:
>>
>> /*** pSeries interrupt support ***/
>>
>>        /* moved from 0xf00 */
>> + #ifdef CONFIG_PERFMON
>> +         MASKABLE_EXCEPTION_PSERIES(., performance_monitor)
>> + #else
>>        STD_EXCEPTION_PSERIES(., performance_monitor)
>> + #endif
>>
>> /*
>> * An interrupt came in while soft-disabled; clear EE in SRR1,
>> * clear paca->hard_enabled and return.
>>
>> The downside of this change is that if someone is using Oprofile and
>> they have enabled perfmon in their kernel, they will not get profile
>> samples that occur in interrupt-protected regions of the kernel.
>> However, they still can by configuring perfmon out of their kernel.
>>
>> What do you think of this idea?  Is this something that you would
>> object to when perfmon2 does go upstream to LKML?  I think we'd want
>> to add some documentation somewhere that describes this side-effect
>> of enabling perfmon in the ppc64 Linux kernel.  Do you have
>> suggestions on where that should go?  I'm thinking perhaps in both
>> the basic_profiling.txt and perfmon2.txt files in the Documentation
>> subdirectory.
> 
> Since you didn't post the perfmon2 code, I'll ask instead of go look:
> 
> Do you have a single entry point from performance_monitor into
> perfmon2? If so, it's nicer to check and see if interrupts are soft
> disabled right upon entry (before taking any locks, etc), and if they
> are just return without doing more work.
> 
> PMU interrupts generally won't re-arm themselves so you'll obviously
> have to deal with that as well but I'm sure you're already aware of
> that...
> 
> 
> -Olof

The perfmon2 code is available here: 
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=144822

perfmon2's interrupt handler does have a single entry point.  Could I 
somehow mimic what the MASKABLE_EXCEPTION_PSERIES macro does inside of 
the perfmon2 interrupt handler?  Are there examples of this I can look at?

That would give us the best of both worlds.

Regards,

- Corey

-- 
Corey Ashford
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center, Linux Toolchain
Beaverton, OR
503-578-3507
cjashfor at us.ibm.com