linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] NMI: fix NMI period is not correct when cpu frequency changes issue.

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: <20130418133927.GJ79013@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:39:27 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Pan, Zhenjie" <zhenjie.pan@...el.com>,
	"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"acme@...stprotocols.net" <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] NMI: fix NMI period is not correct when cpu frequency
 changes issue.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 02:04:00PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 06:57 +0000, Pan, Zhenjie wrote:
> >> Watchdog use performance monitor of cpu clock cycle to generate NMI to detect hard lockup.
> >> But when cpu's frequency changes, the event period will also change.
> >> It's not as expected as the configration.
> >> For example, set the NMI event handler period is 10 seconds when the cpu is 2.0GHz.
> >> If the cpu changes to 800MHz, the period will be 10*(2000/800)=25 seconds.
> >> So it may make hard lockup detect not work if the watchdog timeout is not long enough.
> >> Now, set a notifier to listen to the cpu frequency change.
> >> And dynamic re-config the NMI event to make the event period correct.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Urgh,. does this really matter.. all we really want is for that NMI to
> > hit eventually in the not too distant future. Does the frequency really
> > matter _that_ much?
> >
> I agree, it does not really matter. Set the watchdog to a couple of minutes
> and it should be fine, shouldn't it?

I believe it mattered to the Chrome folks. They want the watchdog to be as
tight as possible so the user experience isn't a hang but a quick reboot
instead.  They like setting the watchdog to something like 2 seconds.

There was a patch a few months ago that tried to hack around this issue
and I suggested this approach as a better solution.  I forgot what the
original problem was.  Perhaps someone can jump in and explain the problem
being solved (other than the watchdog isn't always 10 seconds)?

Cheers,
Don

> 
> > Also, can't we simply pick an event that's invariant to the cpufreq
> > nonsense? Something like CPU_CLK_UNHALTED.REF -- or better the
> > fixed_ctr2 which nobody ever uses anyway.
> >
> You don't want to use fixed counter 2 for NMI watchdog because it's pinned.
> No other counter can count this event. And it is very useful. I use it often.
--
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/