linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] perf: multiplexing and hotplug CPU problem

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]

Message-ID: <1347461232.15764.45.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:47:12 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf: multiplexing and hotplug CPU problem

On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 16:40 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As I was debugging my hrtimer patch, I ran a few tests
> with hotplug CPU. In others words, I offline a CPU while
> there is an active monitoring session which causes multiplexing.
> 
> When the CPU goes down, all is well. But when it comes back,
> things go wrong. No kernel crashes but wrong results and multiplexing
> does not work anymore.
> 
> I investigated this some more and found out there is an issue
> on re-activation.
> 
> During shutdown, system-wide events are scheduled out AND removed
> from the event lists. Consequently, ctx->nr_events and ctx->nr_active
> go to zero.
> 
> When the CPU is brought back online and tools do start/stop on the events
> they can be scheduled back in, and therefore increment ctx->nr_active.
> Because list_add_event() is not called again, you may end up with
> ctx->nr_events < ctx->nr_active which is wrong. Events may not
> be a lists and therefore they cannot get multiplexed again.
> 
> It is not clear to me why we need to remove the events from any
> list (list_del_event) when the CPU goes down.
> 
> Why isn't calling event_sched_out() enough?
> If events are kept on lists, why not try to schedule them back in when
> the CPU is brought back online?

This might be never, I think we should put the events in error state
instead of disabling them, that should avoid the re-activation and
provide a stronger hint to userspace that something went funny.
--
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/