linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] x86/UV: Add ability to disable UV NMI handler

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:	Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:35:41 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
	Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] x86/UV: Add ability to disable UV NMI handler

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:27:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> > > On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
> > > >> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
> > > >> performance impact caused by the multiple perf tools running concurently.
> > > >> If the system nmi command is issued when the UV NMI handler is disabled,
> > > >> the "Dazed and Confused" messages occur for all cpus.  The NMI handler is
> > > >> disabled by setting the nmi disabled variable to '1'.  Setting it back to
> > > >> '0' will re-enable the NMI handler.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not entirely sure why this is still needed now that you've moved all
> > > > really expensive bits into the UNKNOWN handler.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, it could be considered optional.  My primary use was to isolate
> > > new bugs I found to see if my NMI changes were causing them.  But it
> > > appears that they are not since the problems occur with or without
> > > using the NMI entry into KDB.  So it can be safely removed.
> > 
> > OK, as a debug option it might make sense, but removing it is (of course)
> > fine with me ;-)
> > 
> > > (The basic problem is that if you hang out in KDB too long the machine
> > > locks up.  
> > 
> > Yeah, known issue. Not much you can do about it either I suspect. The
> > system generally isn't build for things like that.
> > 
> > > Other problems like the rcu stall detector does not have a
> > > means to be "touched" like the nmi_watchdog_timer so it fires off a
> > > few to many, many messages.  
> > 
> > That however might be easily cured if you ask Paul nicely ;-)
> 
> RCU's grace-period mechanism is supposed to be what touches it.  ;-)
> 
> But what is it that you are looking for?  If you want to silence it
> completely, the rcu_cpu_stall_suppress boot/sysfs parameter is what
> you want to use.
> 
> > > Another, any network connections will time
> > > out if you are in KDB more than say 20 or 30 seconds.)
> 
> Ah, you are looking for RCU to refrain from complaining about grace
> periods that have been delayed by breakpoints in the kernel?  Is there
> some way that RCU can learn that a breakpoint has happened?  If so,
> this should not be hard.

But wait...  RCU relies on the jiffies counter for RCU CPU stall warnings.
Doesn't the jiffies counter stop during breakpoints?

							Thanx, Paul

> If not, I must fall back on the rcu_cpu_stall_suppress that I mentioned
> earlier.
> 
> > > One other problem is with the perf tool.  It seems running more than
> > > about 2 or 3 perf top instances on a medium (1k cpu threads) sized
> > > system, they start behaving badly with a bunch of NMI stackdumps
> > > appearing on the console.  Eventually the system become unusable.
> > 
> > Yuck.. I haven't seen anything like that on the 'tiny' systems I have :/
> 
> Indeed, with that definition of "medium", large must be truly impressive!
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > > On a large system (4k), the perf tools get an error message (sorry
> > > don't have it handy at the moment) the basically implies that the
> > > perf config option is not set.  Again, I wanted to remove the new
> > > NMI handler to insure that it wasn't doing something weird, and
> > > it wasn't.
> > 
> > Cute.. 
> > --
> > 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/
> > 

--
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/