[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120912173624.GA8902@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:36:24 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf, intel: Don't touch MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR
from NMI context
On 09/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Oleg and Sebastian found that touching MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR from NMI
> context is problematic since the only way to change the various
> unrelated bits in there is:
>
> debugctl = get_debugctlmsr()
> /* frob flags in debugctl */
> update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
>
> Which is entirely unsafe if we prod at the MSR from NMI context.
>
> In particular the path that is responsible is:
>
> x86_pmu_handle_irq() (NMI handler)
> x86_pmu_stop()
> x86_pmu.disable -> intel_pmu_disable_event()
> intel_pmu_lbr_disable()
> __intel_pmu_lbr_disable()
> wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR,... );
Not only.
x86_pmu_handle_irq() does intel_pmu_disable_all() and intel_pmu_enable_all(),
this leads to intel_pmu_enable_bts() and intel_pmu_disable_bts().
And those intel_pmu_*_bts() are also called by intel_pmu_disable_event()
and intel_pmu_enable_event(), the latter is probably fine.
Oleg.
--
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