On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:08:15PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 01:10:23AM +0000, Matt Macy wrote:
> > @@ -2214,6 +2236,11 @@ pmc_hook_handler(struct thread *td, int function,
> > void
> >
> > pmc_capture_user_callchain(PCPU_GET(cpuid), PMC_HR,
> > (struct trapframe *) arg);
> > +
> > + KASSERT(td->td_pinned == 1,
> > + ("[pmc,%d] invalid td_pinned value", __LINE__));
> > + sched_unpin(); /* Can migrate safely now. */
> sched_pin() is called from pmc_post_callchain_callback(), which is
> called from userret(). userret() is executed with interrupts and
> preemption enabled, so there is a non-trivial chance that the thread
> already migrated.
>
> In fact, I do not see a need to disable migration for the thread if user
> callchain is planned to be gathered. You only need to remember the cpu
> where the interrupt occured, to match it against the request. Or are
> per-cpu PMC registers still accessed during callchain collection ?
And more, it is safe to access userspace from userret() so you can
walk usermode stack in the pmc callback directly, without scheduling
an ast.
>
> > +int
> > +pmc_process_interrupt(int cpu, int ring, struct pmc *pm, struct trapframe
> > *tf,
> > + int inuserspace)
> > +{
> > + struct thread *td;
> > +
> > + td = curthread;
> > + if ((pm->pm_flags & PMC_F_USERCALLCHAIN) &&
> > + td && td->td_proc &&
> > + (td->td_proc->p_flag & P_KPROC) == 0 &&
> > + !inuserspace) {
> I am curious why a lot of the pmc code checks for curthread != NULL and,
> like this fragment, for curproc != NULL. I am sure that at least on x86,
> we never let curthread point to the garbage, even during the context
> switches. NMI handler has the same cargo-cult check, BTW.
>
> Also, please fix the indentation of the conditions block.
>
> > + atomic_add_int(&curthread->td_pmcpend, 1);
> You can use atomic_store_int() there, I believe, Then there would be
> no locked op executed at all, on x86.
>
> > @@ -375,6 +375,7 @@ struct thread {
> > void *td_lkpi_task; /* LinuxKPI task struct pointer */
> > TAILQ_ENTRY(thread) td_epochq; /* (t) Epoch queue. */
> > epoch_section_t td_epoch_section; /* (t) epoch section object */
> > + int td_pmcpend;
> Why this member was not put into the zeroed region ? Wouldn't a garbage
> there cause uneccessary ASTs ?
>
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
