From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753739Ab3COIBe (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:01:34 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48]:55431 "EHLO mail-qa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752357Ab3COIBc (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:01:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20130226070247.GA14094@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:01:29 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] perf fixes From: Stephane Eranian To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> >> I bet if you force the affinity of your perf record to be on >> a CPU other than CPU0, you will not get the crash. >> >> This is what I am seeing now. I appears on resume, >> CPU0 hotplug callbacks for perf_events are not invoked >> leaving DS_AREA MSR to 0. >> >> Can you confirm on your machine? > > I'm not even going to bother confirming it, because I think you're > right, and I think the reason is clear: the DS initialization code > uses the CPU_UP notifiers. > Ok, I instrumented the pebs_enable() function and I confirm that DS_AREA=0 on resume. So what seems broken here for me is that on suspend, the cpu notifier ends up calling fini_debug_store() to clear DS_AREA for CPU0. But on resume, the same notifier does NOT call the init_debug_store(). I don't understand this asymmetry. You either do neither or you do both. > And that's sufficient for CPU hotplug, which is what suspend/resume > ends up doing for all but the boot CPU. But the boot CPU is not > hotplugged. > > Using CPU_UP notifiers is wrong, and they get called too late anyway. > > The code should use a real resume method. Or, better yet, just do it > right, and do it from __restore_processor_state(). > > Those f*cking CPU notifiers are a pain in the ass, and the tend to be > invariably broken, and they have their own idiotic hacks that are > equally broken (ie that x86_pmu_notifier() thing seems to make up its > own suspend/resume with > "x86_pmu.cpu_prepare/cpu_starting/cpu_dying/cpu_dead" things. > > I guess we could make the BP do a fake cpu notifier thing around the > suspend of the boot processor as well, but most of the per-CPU stuff > seems to be perfectly fine without it (ie mtrr, apic, etc etc all use > the suspend/resume infrastructure) and doesn't need that kind of > stuff. > > Linus