Re: [REGRESSION] perf/core: PMU interrupts dropped if we entered the kernel in the "skid" region

From: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>,
	acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, kan.liang@intel.com,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] perf/core: PMU interrupts dropped if we entered the kernel in the "skid" region
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:46:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAP045AqMGwHKCiTTUQauX1ZivpnW-QW355rzCVLgdGn7HgOo3Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170628101248.GB5981@leverpostej>

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:51:00PM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Jin, Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In theory, the PMI interrupts in skid region should be dropped, right?
>>
>> No, why would they be dropped?
>>
>> My understanding of the situation is as follows:
>>
>> There is some time, call it t_0, where the hardware counter overflows.
>> The PMU triggers an interrupt, but this is not instantaneous.  Call
>> the time when the interrupt is actually delivered t_1.  Then t_1 - t_0
>> is the "skid".
>>
>> Note that if the counter is `exclude_kernel`, then at t_0 the CPU
>> *must* be running a userspace program.  But by t_1, the CPU may be
>> doing something else.  Your patch changed things so that if at t_1 the
>> CPU is in the kernel, then the interrupt is discarded.  But rr has
>> programmed the counter to deliver a signal on overflow (via F_SETSIG
>> on the fd returned by perf_event_open).  This change results in the
>> signal never being delivered, because the interrupt was ignored.
>> (More accurately, the signal is delivered the *next* time the counter
>> overflows, which is far past where we wanted to inject our
>> asynchronous event into our tracee.
>
> Yes, this is a bug.
>
> As we're trying to avoid smapling state, I think we can move the check
> into perf_prepare_sample() or __perf_event_output(), where that state is
> actually sampled. I'll take a look at that momentarily.
>
> Just to clarify, you don't care about the sample state at all? i.e. you
> don't need the user program counter?

Right. `sample_regs_user`, `sample_star_user`, `branch_sample_type`,
etc are all 0.
https://github.com/mozilla/rr/blob/cf594dd01f07d96a61409e9f41a29f78c8c51693/src/PerfCounters.cc#L194
is what we do use.

> Is that signal delivered to the tracee, or to a different process that
> traces it? If the latter, what ensures that the task is stopped
> sufficiently quickly?

It's delivered to the tracee (via an F_SETOWN_EX with the tracee tid).
In practice we've found that on modern Intel hardware that the
interrupt and resulting signal delivery delay is bounded by a
relatively small number of counter events.

>> It seems to me that it might be reasonable to ignore the interrupt if
>> the purpose of the interrupt is to trigger sampling of the CPUs
>> register state.  But if the interrupt will trigger some other
>> operation, such as a signal on an fd, then there's no reason to drop
>> it.
>
> Agreed. I'll try to have a patch for this soon.
>
> I just need to figure out exactly where that overflow signal is
> generated by the perf core.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.

- Kyle