linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v3] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:16:05 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running
 perfctrs


* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 04:27:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 10:12 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:45:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I queued it with that part changed to:
> > > 
> > > I realized the other day this change doesn't cover the nehalem, core and p4
> > > cases which use
> > > 
> > > intel_pmu_handle_irq
> > > p4_pmu_handle_irq
> > > 
> > > as their handlers.  Though that patch can go on top of Robert's.
> > 
> > Something like this?
> 
> I tested this patch and Robert's on an AMD box and Nehalem box.  Both
> worked as intended.  However I did notice that whenever the AMD box
> detected handled >1, it was shortly followed by an unknown_nmi that was
> properly eaten with Robert's logic.  Whereas on the Nehalem box I saw a
> lot of 'handled > 1' messages but very very few of them were followed by
> an unknown_nmi message (and those messages that did come were properly
> eaten).
> 
> Maybe that is just the differences in the cpu designs.
> 
> Of course I had to make the one change I mentioned previously for the
> perf_event_intel.c file (moving the handled++ logic down a few lines).
> 
> I didn't run the test on a P4 box.
> 
> Looks great, thanks guys!

Please someone send the final version with a changelog, with all the acks and 
tested-by's added, so that i can send it Linuswards.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/