linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] new nmi

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20100212165920.GB3062@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:59:20 -0500
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] new nmi_watchdog using perf events

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 05:12:38PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Don,
> 
> How is this new NMI watchdog code going to work when you also have OProfile
> enabled in your kernel?
> 
> Today, perf_event disables the NMI watchdog while there is at least one event.
> By releasing the PMU registers, it also allows for Oprofile to work.
> 
> But now with this new NMI watchdog code, perf_event never releases the PMU.
> Thus, I suspect Oprofile will not work anymore, unless the NMI watchdog is
> explicitly disabled. Up until now OProfile could co-exist with the NMI watchdog.

You are right.  Originally when I read the code I thought perf_event just
grabbed all the PMUs in reserve_pmc_init().  But I see that only happens
when someone actually creates a PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE event, which the new
nmi watchdog does.  Those PMUs only get released when the event is
destroyed which my new code only does when the cpu disappears.

So yeah, I have effectively blocked oprofile from working.  I can change
my code such that when you disable the nmi_watchdog, you can release the
PMUs and let oprofile work.

But then I am curious, considering that perf and oprofile do the same
thing, how much longer do we let competing subsystems control the same
hardware?  I thought the point of the perf_event subsystem was to have a
proper framework on top of the PMUs such that anyone who wants to use it
just registers themselves, which is what the new nmi_watchdog is doing.

I can add code that allows oprofile and the new nmi watchdog to coexist,
but things get a little ugly to maintain.  Just wondering what the
gameplan is here?

Cheers,
Don

--
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/