| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTinLRzQ5bFVaeSrZ97FBsi4Bd-Qm-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:40:19 +0200
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
robert.richter@....com, andi@...stfloor.org, gorcunov@...nvz.org,
ming.m.lin@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, acme@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86, perf: high volume of events produces a flood of
unknown NMIs
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:26:39PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Don,
>>
>> May I suggest that the interrupt handler for Intel double checks
>> the counters directly to verify that their state actually reflects
>> the bitmask in GLOBAL_OVF_STATUS. I believe on some
>> CPUs they may disagree sometimes.
>
> Hmm, I guess I only tested that suggestion on my Xeon core2. My Nehalem
> box seems to have lots of false positives. :-/
Yep, I have seen that myself. I think the only reliable source would
be the counters
themselves and not the GLOBAL_OVF_STATUS. I wonder what would happen if
we were to switch to counters to build our own overflow bitmask. Would
that mitigate
the spurious NMI you're seeing?
>
> Cheers,
> Don
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Arnaldo pointed me at an NMI problem that happens when he tries to
>> > generate a high volume of perf events. He receives a flood of unknown
>> > NMIs.
>> >
>> > I have been poking at the problem and came up with a patch, but it doesn't
>> > always work. I was hoping people who understood how the NMI works at a
>> > low level might be able to help me.
>> >
>> > I was able to duplicate this on an AMD Phenom, Pentium 4, Xeon Core2quad,
>> > and Nehalem. The problem I think is the large generation of back-to-back
>> > NMIs. The perf nmi handler may accidentally handle some of those
>> > extra/in-flight NMIs in its first pass, leaving the next NMI to be
>> > unhandled and generating an unknown NMI message.
>> >
>> > Robert included logic to check for two back-to-back NMIs, but that falls
>> > short when more then three are generated. I modified his logic to account
>> > for three back-to-back NMIs, but that didn't completely solve the problem.
>> >
>> > I took another approach at catching back-to-back NMIs that seemed to work
>> > on all my machines except for the Xeon core2quad, but I am not entirely
>> > sure if my approach is valid.
>> >
>> > The approach I took was based on the idea that if an NMI is being
>> > generated while currently in an NMI handler, the current NMI when finished
>> > won't continue executing the next instruction before the exception but
>> > instead jump back into another NMI exception frame.
>> >
>> > As a result, the args passed in to the NMI handler should have the same ip
>> > and sp as the previous NMI interrupt. Otherwise one could assume that
>> > some amount of time passed between interrupts (enough to return from the
>> > exception and execute code).
>> >
>> > I thought this would allow me to trap an infinite number of back-to-back
>> > NMIs. Like I said it seemed to work in a number of machines, except for
>> > my Xeon core2quad.
>> >
>> > Does anyone know if my approach is a valid one? Or is there a better way
>> > to catch this condition? Or maybe some other tips or tricks I can use to
>> > help come up with a solution for this?
>> >
>> > Or perhaps we don't care about this because in the end perf can't even
>> > capture the data without spitting out a CPU Overload message.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Attached is the crude patch I was using for testing. It also includes
>> > another patch the moves the apic LVTPC un-masking to fix the Pentium4
>> > machines.
>> >
>> > The commands I run to generate this problem is
>> >
>> > shell1> mount -t debugfs debugfs /sys/kernel/debug
>> > shell1> cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing
>> > shell1> cat trace_pipe
>> >
>> > shell2> <grab kernel source>
>> > shell2> <cd to kernel source>
>> > shell2> make -j8
>> >
>> > shell3> perf record grep -r foo / &> /dev/null &
>> > shell3> perf record -F 100000 -g -e cycles -e instructions -e cache-misses
>> > --pid <pidof make>
>> >
>> > takes about a minute or two to duplicate
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Don
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
>> > index eed3673a..20aa734 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
>> > @@ -104,7 +104,6 @@ struct cpu_hw_events {
>> > */
>> > struct perf_event *events[X86_PMC_IDX_MAX]; /* in counter order */
>> > unsigned long active_mask[BITS_TO_LONGS(X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)];
>> > - unsigned long running[BITS_TO_LONGS(X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)];
>> > int enabled;
>> >
>> > int n_events;
>> > @@ -1160,7 +1159,6 @@ static void x86_pmu_start(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
>> >
>> > cpuc->events[idx] = event;
>> > __set_bit(idx, cpuc->active_mask);
>> > - __set_bit(idx, cpuc->running);
>> > x86_pmu.enable(event);
>> > perf_event_update_userpage(event);
>> > }
>> > @@ -1284,15 +1282,11 @@ static int x86_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> >
>> > cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
>> >
>> > + /* chipsets have their own quirks when to unmask */
>> > + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
>> > +
>> > for (idx = 0; idx < x86_pmu.num_counters; idx++) {
>> > if (!test_bit(idx, cpuc->active_mask)) {
>> > - /*
>> > - * Though we deactivated the counter some cpus
>> > - * might still deliver spurious interrupts still
>> > - * in flight. Catch them:
>> > - */
>> > - if (__test_and_clear_bit(idx, cpuc->running))
>> > - handled++;
>> > continue;
>> > }
>> >
>> > @@ -1333,8 +1327,8 @@ void perf_events_lapic_init(void)
>> > }
>> >
>> > struct pmu_nmi_state {
>> > - unsigned int marked;
>> > - int handled;
>> > + unsigned long ip;
>> > + unsigned long sp;
>> > };
>> >
>> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pmu_nmi_state, pmu_nmi);
>> > @@ -1344,8 +1338,9 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
>> > unsigned long cmd, void *__args)
>> > {
>> > struct die_args *args = __args;
>> > - unsigned int this_nmi;
>> > int handled;
>> > + unsigned long ip = __this_cpu_read(pmu_nmi.ip);
>> > + unsigned long sp = __this_cpu_read(pmu_nmi.sp);
>> >
>> > if (!atomic_read(&active_events))
>> > return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> > @@ -1353,46 +1348,20 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
>> > switch (cmd) {
>> > case DIE_NMI:
>> > break;
>> > - case DIE_NMIUNKNOWN:
>> > - this_nmi = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count);
>> > - if (this_nmi != __this_cpu_read(pmu_nmi.marked))
>> > - /* let the kernel handle the unknown nmi */
>> > - return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> > - /*
>> > - * This one is a PMU back-to-back nmi. Two events
>> > - * trigger 'simultaneously' raising two back-to-back
>> > - * NMIs. If the first NMI handles both, the latter
>> > - * will be empty and daze the CPU. So, we drop it to
>> > - * avoid false-positive 'unknown nmi' messages.
>> > - */
>> > - return NOTIFY_STOP;
>> > default:
>> > return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> > }
>> >
>> > - apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
>> > -
>> > + __this_cpu_write(pmu_nmi.ip, args->regs->ip);
>> > + __this_cpu_write(pmu_nmi.sp, args->regs->sp);
>> > handled = x86_pmu.handle_irq(args->regs);
>> > - if (!handled)
>> > + if (!handled) {
>> > + if ((args->regs->ip == ip) && (args->regs->sp == sp)) {
>> > + trace_printk("MATCH: ip - 0x%08lx, sp - 0x%08lx\n", ip, sp);
>> > + return NOTIFY_STOP;
>> > + }else
>> > + trace_printk("nomatch: ip - 0x%08lx (0x%08lx), sp - 0x%08lx (0x%08lx)\n", ip, args->regs->ip, sp, args->regs->sp);
>> > return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> > -
>> > - this_nmi = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count);
>> > - if ((handled > 1) ||
>> > - /* the next nmi could be a back-to-back nmi */
>> > - ((__this_cpu_read(pmu_nmi.marked) == this_nmi) &&
>> > - (__this_cpu_read(pmu_nmi.handled) > 1))) {
>> > - /*
>> > - * We could have two subsequent back-to-back nmis: The
>> > - * first handles more than one counter, the 2nd
>> > - * handles only one counter and the 3rd handles no
>> > - * counter.
>> > - *
>> > - * This is the 2nd nmi because the previous was
>> > - * handling more than one counter. We will mark the
>> > - * next (3rd) and then drop it if unhandled.
>> > - */
>> > - __this_cpu_write(pmu_nmi.marked, this_nmi + 1);
>> > - __this_cpu_write(pmu_nmi.handled, handled);
>> > }
>> >
>> > return NOTIFY_STOP;
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> > index 8fc2b2c..99b5151 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> > @@ -937,6 +937,9 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> > handled = intel_pmu_drain_bts_buffer();
>> > status = intel_pmu_get_status();
>> > if (!status) {
>> > + /* chipsets have their own quirks when to unmask */
>> > + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
>> > +
>> > intel_pmu_enable_all(0);
>> > return handled;
>> > }
>> > @@ -988,6 +991,9 @@ again:
>> > goto again;
>> >
>> > done:
>> > + /* chipsets have their own quirks when to unmask */
>> > + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
>> > +
>> > intel_pmu_enable_all(0);
>> > return handled;
>> > }
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
>> > index c2520e1..612bc0e 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
>> > @@ -921,9 +921,6 @@ static int p4_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> > int overflow;
>> >
>> > if (!test_bit(idx, cpuc->active_mask)) {
>> > - /* catch in-flight IRQs */
>> > - if (__test_and_clear_bit(idx, cpuc->running))
>> > - handled++;
>> > continue;
>> > }
>> >
>> > @@ -950,11 +947,17 @@ static int p4_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> > p4_pmu_disable_event(event);
>> > }
>> >
>> > - if (handled) {
>> > - /* p4 quirk: unmask it again */
>> > - apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, apic_read(APIC_LVTPC) & ~APIC_LVT_MASKED);
>> > + if (handled)
>> > inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
>> > - }
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * P4 quirks:
>> > + * - An overflown perfctr will assert its interrupt
>> > + * until the OVF flag in its CCCR is cleared.
>> > + * - LVTPC is masked on interrupt and must be
>> > + * unmasked by the LVTPC handler.
>> > + */
>> > + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
>> >
>> > return handled;
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists