linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf, x86: Catch spurious interrupts after disabling counters

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 Oct 2010 19:28:42 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"ming.m.lin@...el.com" <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf, x86: Catch spurious interrupts after
 disabling counters

Andi,

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>> I haven't seen Andi's suggestion. But I am guessing he is suggesting
>> adding a new chain that would be called first and where there would
>> ONLY be the perf_event subsystem. To handle the spurious PMU
>
> I was thinking of a separate NMI chain
>

You mean separate callbacks which rely on getting an NMI interrupt
from those which don't? If so, I definitively agree with you on that.


> (and longer term really splitting the die chains into separate chains,
> that would solve other problems e.g. with page fault performance
> too)
>
> Possibly that NMI chain could be split up too, but not sure
> this is really needed.
>
You need to split to enforce more explicit priority scheme than what
you  have today with an ordered list per chain.
--
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/